You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Enigmas and suspected basic flaws in physics evade mathematical scrutiny if they relate to intuitive pre-mathematical fallacies. This essay focuses on notions and tacit assumptions that are basic to theories. For instance it questions the assumptions that the distinction between past and future is an illusion, time is something a priori given in which objects may move like in space, and any mathematical structure has a correlate in reality. Because it is not biased by an intension to brutally rescue holy grails, it does not question causality, c, or time. Instead it is driven by curiosity about how we go about doing what we do and by the confidence to eventually reveal typical human fallacies. Some key tenets of mathematics and physics proved to be at variance with its results. They include putative realism of future space-time, perfect mirror-symmetries, naïve set theory, singularities, and possibly even Lorentz contraction.

Good to see your essay appear. It looks very interesting based on the abstract, but I insist on reading the rest before forming a full opinion. It should be fun for me, as it looks like you touch on some of the early childhood stuff I am examining; it appears that very young children make no distinction between themselves and their environment. But once we do start making distinctions, to make sense of things, it's hard to go back to oneness. I guess it's the same for Math and Physics. I wish you luck in the contest, and many interesting conversations on the forum.

Everyone has the impression that time does not have a fundamental mathematical link to physical law, it has to be defined locally. You made the following comment on your earlier essay, topic 369, (Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 21:26 GMT):

"Aren't functions of time and functions of frequency/energy equivalent?"

You made that statement before publication of my July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials article "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants".

I identified the relationship between time, frequency and energy well before 2008, but it took awhile to get the concept published; it experienced a few rejections from a number of traditional journals.

I am aware of the significance of the concept presented in the IEEE paper, but I had to limit what I could include in the text to avoid editor and peer review rejection. The only negative peer review comment was the appropriateness of that type of paper in IEEE Potentials. I was asked by the editor to provide a Benefits section, which was published verbatim; I was careful what I put in that section.

The paper can be accessed through:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=5962021

Since Jan 2011, IEEE does not allow authors to post their IEEE published papers on their academic or personal websites. A postprint is available at:

Admittedly, I did not yet reply to your post because I simply failed to understand how it relates to my essay. I had already tried in vain to understand your IEEE paper before you pointed me to it. Maybe, the referees had also problems to grasp immediately what you intended to say.

Aren't you also an EE? I learned always to reveal and criticize the state of the art before claiming the solution of a problem. Your Figs. confused me perhaps due to lacking knowledge of mine. Anticipate that your reader may need helpful explanations.

If I recall correctly, you once experienced rejection because you didn't obey SR. This is not uncommon. If you are still convinced to be correct, I encourage you to tell us the problem.

With sympathy,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT

Dear Frank,

"Everyone has the impression that time ... has to be defined locally"??? Perhaps an estimated very few millions of people are not obliged to believe in the relativity of time. Not just Phipps Jr. reinstalled simultaneity. I am sorry, I still did not understand your contribution to that issue.

Peter Jackson quoted in his essay: "A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away; (2005. p.6) 14

I think we all know these points you make, but they merge in confused fashion into habitual use of 'point'-based notions and ideas. We hold the mathematical concepts, set theory, calculus, etc., in our heads forgetting where the logical holes are located. It is very good that you continue to remind us that holes exist and show us where some big ones are located. You do so in such pleasant and easy to understand manner. As you say, "Lacking awareness to the limits of idealization implies a lot of logical inconsistencies." I agree with your following statement, "Tolerating an overlap of mutually excluding models is certainly no satisfactory solution." I have several times quoted Norman Cook on this point:

"In the context of nuclear structure theory, the various nuclear models can account separately for different data sets, but the necessity of jumping from one model to another is jarring for anyone who values coherency... and makes me think there are different understandings of what "understanding" means."

I do agree that the usual "dualism" between particle or wave, typically assumed to mean it is one *or* the other based on when and how you look at it, is nonsense. I hope that my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, will provide you a new way to look at this problem, based on physically real particles *and* associated waves. My model is not 'point'-based, but I do not go into spin in this essay.

You will find a number of 'intuition' based essays in this current competition. I think that Daryl, Janzen, Michael Goodband, Israel Perez, and others make some reference to intuition as the basis for questioning certain assumptions. I particularly liked your discussion of the continuum under the topic of intuition. Finally, you provide a large set of references to papers that look to be fascinating.

Thanks for a well thought out, well written, well referenced essay. It is excellent and I wish you good luck in the contest.

I admire your brilliant ability to emphatically comment even on mutually contradicting essays, and I feel your comment on mine more fair than I could expect after I quoted Kadin who plausibly at least to me explains why he does not consider photons particles. You might blame my lacking qualification for my failure to immediately grasp your slightly different concept.

While I do not deny that intuition can provide the basis for questioning certain assumptions, my essay tries to show to what extent science has been based on rather shaky intuition.

Well, on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits. My lists of enigma, suspected basic flaws and confessions coincides by chance and only in part with my criticism of arbitrary decisions made from a more or less intuitive background.

I am the nobody to whom even a Norman Cook is a nobody. I recall Jont Allen admitting something similar more briefly: No model (of cochlea) fits all data.

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT

Dear Eckard,

You are correct that I find mutually contradicting essays interesting and to some degree convincing. There are a few arguments here that I am unable to decide between, and others in which I wonder if some middleground is possible.

As for Kadin, I do not recall his exact stance on photons as particles. I certainly do not envision photons as material particles like electrons. The question is whether there is any 'local' energy packet (and hence equivalent 'local mass density') as Einstein and Dirac and many others concluded. If so, then this will induce the C-field circulation I have described in my essay. It is my assumption that such localization does apply, as the implications of the alternative seem completely unrealistic to me. And it seems indisputable that photons carry momentum, which is the 'source' of the induced circulation. I hope you might reconsider my approach with this in mind.

You say "on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits." Re-reading my comment I realized what my first sentence sounded like and I disliked my own wording. A good part of the reason that I am mindful of the basic problems with math is because of your previous essays and arguments on FQXi. So I would soften that sentence in favor of the third sentence.

You state that "No model (of cochlea) fits all data". I am not an expert on physiological structure and function, but I believe that biological reality is so many more orders of magnitude more complicated than elementary particle physics, gravity, etc, that multiple models of biology are more to be expected.

What I would NOT change is my final sentence, "Thanks for a well thought out, well written, well referenced essay. It is excellent and I wish you good luck in the contest."

I intend learning from you to regard concerns of others at least as important as my own. Therefore I will try and first tell you what might be of interest with respect to your C-field. You know that I do not understand anything in this area. Kadin wrote: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave psi = exp(imc2t/h_bar)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation rather than a true physical wave in real space." Then he dealt with the earlier established evidence for Wave-Particle Duality for several quantum entities. His Table 1 is convincing to me. The evidence for photons to be particles is just a weak one. I understand the spin of electromagnetic waves as their polarization. And why should wave not have energy? Strong evidence for being a particle is the property of atoms and the like to be arranged in lattices with certain distances from each other. I am also declined to take seriously the arguments by Dieter Zeh and Eric Reiter. Moreover, you pointed me to Michael Goodband. See Tom's reply to my belonging questions to Michael. That's already all I can possibly do as to support you.

Let me once again stress my intention to show that intuitive attitudes are not just to be found if young people are having problems to swallow formalized so called counterintuitive theories but the other way round, at least some of such allegedly rigorously founded theories are actually based on hidden possibly questionable pre-mathematical intuitions. Accordingly I decided to choose the title of my essay QUESTIONING PRE-MATHEMATICAL INTUITIONS and not questioning theories by means of intuition.

I apologize for sending my last reply unintentionally unsigned.

Regards,

Eckard

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I have read your essay.It is very clearly written,in masterly, beautiful, English language, that many native speakers could not even hope to achieve. There was only one sentence in the whole essay in which the word choice stood out as rather unusual to me. Though it was still completely comprehensible.

I found the essay interesting, enjoyable, easy to read and very relevant to the essay question.It kept my interest and made me want to continue reading to the end.

Very well done. I hope you get may interested readers who will be able to discuss the problems of mathematics with you in an informed way. Good luck in the competition.

If photons did behave as do heavy particles then they should be expected subject to acceleration. This is obviously not the case. Light propagates in vacuum like to be expected from a wave with constant velocity c.

With respect to the first two issues, I agree and I believe my essay offers viable solutions to them. Since the beginning of the XX, physics became so abstract that the physical and intuitive sense were demoted to a second plane. By the 1930s Heisenberg himself gave up trying to find an intuitive picture of quantum mechanical phenomena. He concluded that it was impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively; Schrondinger, Born, Bohr, Neumann, Feynman and others agreed with him. I believe that the reason for this is because they no longer had in mind some physical concepts that are crucial to accomplish the intuitive picture that they were looking for, namely: the PSR, the aether, the idea that particles are actually waves, and the notion that a field is a state of the aether. Once these concepts are restored in the physical conception of reality all the mysteries of quantum mechanics automatically disappear.

The last issue is also explained by the aether. As it is well known the speed of the wave is determined by the density of the medium. If we assume the aether at rest, at a constant temperature and homogeneous, the speed of light has no other option but to be constant since its generation.

Good luck in the contest

Ps. You missed reference 6 in your essay, could you please tell me the reference. As well, in my entry I replied to your comments about Descartes' aether, Bernoulli, Gibbs and the vacuum, please take a look at my thread.

Ref. [6] is to be found in the line of [5] because the contest allowed just one page of references. The original sapere aude seems to be no longer available via http://www.btinternet.com/~sapere.aude . An impressive list of those who signed [5] and some papers by Paul Marmet also disappeared.

I already replied to your very comprehensive reply to my comment that mentioned Gericke as someone who made very convincing as well as fertile experiments. Perhaps you know that von Essen called Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies the worst one he ever read mainly because Einstein did not perform experiments.

While I am not a physicist and I did not deal with Einstein's relativity for all the more than 40 years when I was teaching at Otto-von-Guericke-University, I cannot hide that his method of synchronization looks naively subjectivist to me.

I consider the method by Poincaré (Potier) only convincing in case emitter A and receiver B do not move relative to each other.

Regards,

Eckard

PS: Being short of time at the moment, I promise to reply more in detail and to all others later.

Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 22:38 GMT

Hi Eckard

Ok, thanks for the explanation about the references. I did not know about the comments on Einstein's paper, thanks for the information.

I made a comment in reply to you in my thread regarding the one-way measurement according to Gift. His experiment has no scientific validity.

I do not share your positive attitude toward intuition to which your comment of Aug. 9, 5:30 GMT refers. Reality might differ from intuitively interpreted abstraction. Devlin is certainly correct when he reveals that while epsilontics is rigorous, the interpretation as continuity is intuitive, in other words a questionable petitio principii.

What about S. Gift, may I ask you to briefly explain in what and why he is wrong? Admittedly, I did not yet deal with his claimed measurement. Teaching at the Westindies he seems to be an outsider. However, I only judge on the basis of factual arguments. The reason for me to quote Bruhn [29] was to show how those who used to prejudge simply ignore experimental results and infer from their generalizing intuition that Einstein was a genius who was always correct that anything else must be wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT

Dear Georgina,

Having looked in vain for the word choice, I suspect you meant chosen which occurs twice on p. 3 and once in Appendix B. In the latter case one has the choice between looking at the plane +, +i either from above or from below. Accordingly one sees the phasor exp(iwt) rotating anti-clockwise or clockwise, respectively.

Fig. 1 on p. 3 might be a blasphemy because it calls the birth of Christ an arbitrarily chosen event from which on we are calling a year either a positive AD (anno domini) or a negative BC (before Christ). If I hurt feelings, I apologize for that.

Regards,

Eckard

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:59 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I'm sorry for causing confusion.I just meant the words you chose to use in that one particular sentence would not have been chosen by someone with English as a first language. The rest of the essay is so very well written, demonstrating great linguistic skill.

You wrote :"Let's call most basic assumptions pre-mathematical as to remind of how children get familiar with elementary notions." It would have sounded more natural if you had said "reminiscent of "instead of "as to remind of". Also "children become familiarised" (or -ized) would have worked better than "children get familiar". The meaning of the sentence is still clearly conveyed.I intended the observation of so few errors to be a compliment rather than a criticism. Re. mentioning the birth of Christ, you certainly have not hurt my feelings

Its very well written, fascinating and, for me, educational essay. Well done. Regards, Georgina

My mistake is obvious: When you wrote "word choice" you meant choice of words. In German we would write in this case wordchoice or word-choice. I mistook "word choice" as the word "choice".

My essay tries to show that similar mistakes in science are still to be found. I will read your essay because I consider the meaning of the notion reality utterly important. Einstein referred to the perspective of an observer. This might be a key mistake.

Nice to see you again. Perhaps you managed reading a lot of essays. I am mainly interested in what I consider reasonable outsiders like Janzen, Kadin, Kerr, Perez, Reiter, and Merryman whose essay I will look at next.

Regards,

Eckard

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT

Hello Eckard,

Thank you. I am always happy to see your deterministic road.

There are several relevant essays. Your line of reasoning is rational, it is the most important. I am going to read yours still one x and the other essays also. It is cool this year. I play like a child, after all, the innocence is our best friend.

I consider determinism the belief in the possibility to calculate the future. Therefore I do not see myself on a deterministic road.

Yuri suggested to somehow unite Permanides and Heraklitos. I do not see any factual justification for that. Of course, mandatory idolizing in particular of set theory and of SR led to many desperate maneuvers by those who are a bit coward and maybe even ready to be a bit less honest. Yes, your innocence is my best friend.

Which essay do you consider relevant with respect to the issue I mentioned above? In other words, which are the most hurting ones?

The free will is an essential. Like is essential the free critics. The catalyzations are after all the most important when the determinism is the torch of causes and effects. So the free will is the sister of the free critic. In fact , I beleive strongly that a real universal teacher must be always rational.In fact we cannot affirm a thing if we have not the proof. That said, it exists universal evidences which sometimes does not really need a proof. It is important to be deterministic. It is essential for a scientist at my humble opinion.

If you simulate the future ,you can be determistic but it is difficult because you cannot compute all the parameters.

About the essays, there are all kind of essays. I like, you know it, the determinism, so I hope that the most rational essays shall be recognized. I have my prefered but I don't say anything :)

What you means with determinism is perhaps causality and the possibility to reduce anything to the laws of nature if only something like Laplace's demon is available. You should ask yourself whether or not all possible influences can be taken into account. It depends from this pre-mathematical decision whether you are a theorist like for instance Tom Ray or someone with common sense like for instance me.

Best regards,

Eckard

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT

Hello Eckard,

:) I sort always the things. I need always to select the determinism. I don't affirm whenit is irrational or if it is not already proved. In fact , it is objective and precise the sciences. The confusions are not really a good partner when the illogism is the main conductor of the line of reasoning.

The causality and the effects are always rational in fact simply. Thje proportions are always an universal evidence.

Thus, coherently-cyclic-universe is asymmetric and dynamic as the mathematical representation of universe in entirety is a pre-mathematical intuition, when we ascribe a cycle of it in potential infinity that has actual infinity of cycles.

Admittedly, I am facing difficulties when I am trying to understand your sentence. English is not my mother language. I have no idea what "Thus" refers to. I would write either "the" or "a" coherently-cyclic universe. Perhaps you meant "a" in the sense you are suggesting it. Well, such assumption is clearly speculative. What did you mean with "ascribe ... in"? I only know "ascribe" in connection with "to". If I ascribe a cycle of a cyclic universe to infinity, shouldn't this infinity then be actually infinite? In my humble understanding a genuine cycle is actually endless. The spiral of (nearly) identical cycles you seem to imagine is potentially infinite. Please accept that I am not interested in such perhaps futile speculations.

Regards,

Eckard

Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Actually I have learned many profound details from your essay and when I was analysing my work with that, I unintentionally started the sentence with, ‘Thus’.

Your descriptions on this article provide me vital intuitions to confirm my assumption that the universe is infinite. Hope you may understand my anxiety of concluding.

You really take a sledgehammer to the whole rickety structure. I certainly don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge you possess, so thank you for adding me to the list of those you consider worth reading, even if my essay wasn't what you may have liked to see.

Reading various of the entries in this contest, there are many more serious proposals to really question the conceptual foundations than I had expected, so it gives me some hope a real paradigm shift might be in the foreseeable future. Possibly after this contest is over, some organized effort can arise from those looking outside current boundaries. It is safe to say there is little momentum within the status quo that isn't fantastical speculation, so maybe the momentum will switch to the outside. As I've put it before, the future is a continuation of the past, as long as current structure can absorb new energy, when it can't grow further, then the future becomes a reaction to the past.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/833 I think that it raises for discussion a very important issue for the revision of the foundations of modern physics"

His answer:"I found this essay too long and too boring to read. My superficial search for anything touching upon the foundations of physics led to negative results." --

Frank Wilczek preferred not to answer at all. Meanwhile I got aware that he had advocated for a preferred frame of reference.

Thank you very much for providing the link to cosmologystatement.org So far I did not manage opening it. However, this might be my fault.

Best,

Eckard

John Merryman replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT

Eckard,

Those who create, promote and work within the current model are certainly not going to give credence to those who question it. Ask yourself which side of the debate you would prefer to be on; Those advocating for an increasingly fantastical orthodoxy, or those questioning it?

I've been wondering how those within the establishment would respond to this contest question. If Philip Gibbs and [lin:http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1379] Professor Abraham Loeb are representative, then they are projecting on from current speculation, not debating its foundations.

I looked at Gibbs and Loeb and agree with you. The important things first: You forgot the k of link, and I forgot to ask you for confirmation that the link to cosmologystatement.org still works.

Philip Gibbs wrote to James Putnam on Aug. 11, 2012, 18:05 GMT: “I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)”! Maybe, he envisions viXra ahead. While I appreciate the possibility to publish anything, I did not yet find any good viXra paper.

P. G. revealed to me why 't Hooft understood that my reasoning contradicts to "the holographic principle of Susskind and ‘t Hooft [6]. Understanding of this deep idea came in a number of steps each of which sought consistency through hypothetical thought experiments."

My understanding is different: I see unitarity reversible because it belongs to the level of abstracted from reality notions. It is elusive if understood as an attribute of reality. Only abstracted probabilities can add up to one. Ontological causality also belongs to the level of abstract notions. I maintain what I wrote about causality and elapsed time.

Since John blamed me for a no prisoners essay, I would like to beg the more for your further support. I highly appreciate a lot of hints you gave me including Winterberg, to whom I referred to at [1], Popper on Parmenides, and the Pauli issue to be found in perhaps the first interesting to me viXra paper. Your new hints might be more appealing for those like Lawrence Crowell and Michael Goodband than for those who follow Popper's view like me.

In my reply to Steven I stressed that I consider determinism related to models, not to the open in the sense of reasonably taken for potentially infinite reality. I reiterate what I wrote in my essay 1364: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

By the way, didn't give Lawrence Crowell an intriguing straightforward answer to the question what might be wrong: unitarity, locality, and spacetime geometry?

Best,

Eckard

John Merryman replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT

Eckard,

Tom and I have been arguing over causality, so I'll post my explanation of it:

I'm not arguing against causality, but just trying to clarify it.

Is one event in a sequence the cause of the next, or are they both surface descriptions of deeper process? Does it really make sense to say yesterday is the cause of today, or would it make more sense to say they are both the effect of the earth spinning relative to the light coming from the sun?

If I was to hit a nail with a hammer, it makes sense to say my swinging the hammer is the cause of the nail being driven into the board. So what happened here? There was a direct transfer of energy from my arm, to the hammer, to the nail. My output of energy became input for the nail.

So why doesn't yesterday cause today, but the rotation of the earth and light of the sun does? Energy. There is no direct transfer of energy from yesterday to today, but there is both the momentum energy of the rotation of the earth and radiant energy of the sun, which does go to create this event we call a day. So causation is a function of the transfer of energy, rather than to a direct sequence of events.

I dislike imprecise thoughts. In my understanding any measure of time like for instance the timespan yesterday does neither cause nor be an effect of anything.

While primary or so called temporal causality is bound to reality, so called ontological causality refers to abstractions from real processes.

Nonetheless I agree with you: A causal relation is obviously more than merely a temporal order between earlier and later. You are ascribing it always to a transfer of energy. Hm. I rather see processes integrating influences. Instead of a single cause, I see a plurality of influences. In case of a family tree it would not be justified ascribing a transfer of energy to the male or the female line of influences.

Eckard

John Merryman replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT

Eckard,

Yes, there are many causes to any event. The conversation thread, in which you commented, had been about determinism vs. probability:

"We can't know what all past events will affect current ones, until the affected events actually happen. All the laws deciding what happens may be entirely deterministic, or they wouldn't be laws, but there is no way to know all input, ie, from prior events, before the event in question happens. For the simple reason that the lightcone of input isn't complete until the event happens. So in order to know all potential cause, prior to effect, you would need superluminal signaling, but if such a possibility existed, then it might also provide input into that event, thus needing even faster signaling, and the problem repeats.

Therefore that which has not yet occurred is probabilistic, as all input cannot be known, while all factors have been factored in what has occurred, making it determined."

I see you quite right. What has not yet occurred is not yet fully decided. We only can attribute some probability to it. I wonder if Tom or someone else could refute your argument. I consider Tom's view at the heart of illusions that affect not just modern physics but already modern mathematics.

Best,

Eckard

John Merryman replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT

Eckard,

Tom is a true believer in the Gods of Math. There is a particular, essentially theological assumption built into that faith, that I've been trying to point out; There implicit assumption that a fundamentally objective knowledge of reality is possible, now referred to as a TOE. I keep arguing that knowledge is inherently subjective. It requires a specific frame, perspective, model, etc. Tom knows this, as he says we have nothing without models, but he cannot accept those models he holds dear, are not the "face of God." Such as that a dimensionless point is a mathematical contradiction, since anything multiplied by zero doesn't exist, so it is just a modeling convenience, but the desire for theoretical perfection of measurement would rather a contradiction, than the conceptual fuzziness of requiring points, lines and planes some minimal width/depth.

Not to mention that the "fabric of spacetime" must be "physically real."

I consider Tom's view in agreement with mainstream mistakes. He and all the others do not understand that even obviously matching denotations for elements of reality are subject to possible changes that may put the chosen identification in question. Roger Schlafly stated: "Nature has no faithful mathematical representation."

Presumably, not even Tom will deny that this is correct for the entity of all aspects. On the other hand, Tom argues that there is no reason to doubt that some well confirmed observations and laws of nature are true. He, Lawrence, and many others even refuse to question Einstein's special theory of relativity, and set theory (ST). ST was correctly still called a belief by Hilbert is now established as if it was a fact. Let me call the mainstream (which was called by Weyl the rats who followed the piper Hilbert like the children of Hameln) naive which means too ready to trust in something merely intuitively founded and now at odds with other intuitions. Some most questionable intuitions behind modern mathematics and physics are addressed in my essay. They are typical human fallacies, in particular driven by the desire for rigor and generalization.

1st submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

Excellent review of Pre-Math and intuition. Disturbed by statement, "no consciousness for future time", but love "now time is zero".

One (of many) approaches to this contest looks at E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Well, elapsed time is in reality always positive as is distance too. Ws = Nm.

I just do not yet understand how your comment relates to my essay. In particular, I would never state "no consciousness for future time" or "now time is zero". To me, consciousness does not matter in objective physics.

"... no sign of any superpartners at all. Not only were they supposed to be not too much heavier than the Higgs, but many of them were supposed to be much produced much more copiously, and thus be much easier to see. By now the LHC experiments have shown that such expected particles are absent, unless they are made inaccessible by pushing their masses up to more than an order of magnitude higher than that of the Higgs, a value far beyond what had been advertised as reasonable.

The implications of this attack on theorists by the reality principle are just beginning to sink in. The big yearly conference of superstring theorists was held this past week in Munich, with different speakers taking different approaches to dealing with the problem. One speaker advocated not doing anything until next year, hoping against hope that newer data would give better results. Others took the attitude that it had been clear for quite a while that superstring theory wasn’t going to show signs of existence at the LHC, so best to just work on finding other uses for it. In the conference final “Outlook and Vision” talk, the illustrious speaker announced that all was well, and didn’t mention the LHC results at all. The ostrich-like tactic of burying one’s head in the sand seems to be on the agenda for now, but this will become increasingly difficult to maintain as time goes on and more and more conclusive negative experimental results arrive."

Regards,

Eckard

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT

Eckard

You analyse shortcomings in physics well, but the page limit makes a comprehensive list impossible. I was pleased to agree with all, and strongly with most, particularly the need to recognise 'concrete' meaning in concepts, and that 'points' are inadequate in doing so.

I develop these key points in my own essay to find some important results and implications, particularly the quantum mechanical derivation of the observed relativistic effects by analysing particles as non zero spatially and interactions being non zero temporally. Reading your essay I was increasingly surprised you seem not to have gleaned this from mine, or at least not commented.

The minor typo's and grammar errors count for nought (i.e; 'has a correlate..', 1920th, et cetera), as the content excellent. Perhaps as disjointed at times as mine is 'over dense' in it's layers, but it read smoothly none the less.

Figure 5 was no surprise and I'm surprised it was a surprise for many, because it was in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction, where most assume one. But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways. With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction). I find that this is a massively important fact, not assimilated into theory, which then allows the non-zero particle interaction to produce observed 'Stellar Aberration', which is in the opposite direction tofindings from the emitter frame (as with your Fig 5 from sound).

Perhaps you may re-check my essay as I think we are far more compatible and complimentary that you appeared to recognise.

I have to react to a reply by Lawrence Crowell. Therefore I will only briefly tell you nthat i do not understand your questio n concerning Fig. 5.

You wrote: "Figure 5 was ... in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction ... . But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways."

Feist's car was moving with 120 km/h relative to the air being at rest re ground. The signal was emitted as well as received by the 220 kHz distance finder E which moved together with reflector R "in unison sidewards" because E and R were arranged on the roof of the car with the line ER perpendicular to the direction of motion. Measurement in a wind channel would also be possible but not so easily feasible.

You speculated: "With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction)." Wouldn't refraction require different media?

You'd need to understand 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction' (KRR) to understand my question. KRR is well known in optics but not well enough known outside as not rationalised into present theory. All good optics text books cover it, or this is one good link; 'Refraction between moving media'. http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-08/2-08.htm

Essentially, to an observer at rest in the air, the emission axis rotates in the OPPOSITE direction to that 'observed' from the 'car' frame.

You already agree remember that there IS a change in 'medium' (ambulance siren) from the emitter to the air; consider a siren inside the cabin as a headlight bulb, and the windscreen as the lens, the sound and light change propagation frame (co-moving medium) just AFTER emission. Observers inside the cabin, or the light lens, see the light first emitted in the emitter frame NOT the frame of the outside air. Ergo refraction has to occur before any Doppler shift of wavelength (thus derivative f) can be found by any other observer (where the process repeats in reverse). But do read the link, because it's easy to forget again when applying it due to unfamiliarity.

If you then look at my own figure 5 you can see the mechanism which explains both KRR and the findings of your own figure 5.

In a vacuum this becomes the 'Light Box' paradox. A light pulse bounces up and down, but when in relative motion to an observer it would appear to have an angled path so be superluminal. Tat's why Einstein needed Length Contraction. He said the box must then contract to conserve c.

So why would the light pulse not stay bouncing up and down when the box and it's mirrors moved off sideways!!??

KRR and my Fig 5 explain this without contraction of the box, and if the sides of the box were removed then the pulse WOULD stay vertical when the box moved away. Therefore intuition and logic is reclaimed. (as well as Snel's Law in KRR.

That is why Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood. Only retained assumptions about how things work prevent this understanding.

Thank you for guiding me to "At the end of my Latin". I agree on that "Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood". Be sure, I carefully selected and designed each of my five figures with the intention to enforce an important reconsideration.

Admittedly, I failed to understand on the first glance what message you intended to offer with your figures. You mentioned your Fig. 5; I only found four of your figures.

What about kinetic reverse refraction KRR, "a phenomena not yet assimilated into

physical theory" you did not yet explain to me how it may relate to my Fig. 5 where the wave propagates in only one medium with always the same refractory index. All explanations of KRR I found refer to refraction at a boundary between two media with different indexes.

I will read Shtyrkov's 2011 paper in Russian on the Michelson experiment and have a look at Dowdye's 2006 Introduction in the Extinction Shift Principle you made me aware of. While my Fig. 5 shows reemission, I do not see this a justification for the implications ascribed to emission theories so far.

You again assume without thought that the detector itself, (ignoring the reflector) is not involved in the process. ("...the wave propagates in only one medium...")

This is the wrong assumption I'm discussing. In fact the Hutchinson essay also explains the relationship if not the massive implications quite well in another way, showing the detector cannot detect anything without the light negotiating a a refractive plane (i.e. frame change);

"...In every free space solution for a detector, either the detector has detected the quantum or it has not. After diffraction, the solution almost certainly converges to just one such set of overlapping free space solution because any other solution would be unstable."

This is indeed the precise situation for the KRR experiments. The detector (lens) is in lateral motion wrt the incident medium. So the KRR effect does apply, and all anomalies are resolved, and Snel's law is recovered.

It seems you perhaps tried to read the essay too fast and lost track of the complex logical consistency.

The experiment described in my Fig. 5 is an acoustical one without any lens and with definitely only one medium (air) in which the sound pulse propagates between two rigid boundaries. There is no possibility for a refraction to be seen.

I guess, the astonishing directivity of the 220 kHz ultrasonic transducer used by Feist is not very well known.

You mentioned Hutchinson's essay, I looked in vain for his reply to what you wrote to him and quoted here. You did not even tell me what you meant with your Fig. 5.

Sorry, I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?

May I ask you to answer at least those questions of mine that are possibly very relevant to SR? Is no answer an answer?

Eckard

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT

Eckard

Sound may not propagate as light, but I agree your Fig 5 is still relevant. To first deal with light; I'd posted the following to you on Petcho's blog.;

"All lenses consist of a medium, with a refractive plane separating the propagation medium (air) and the lens. The whole tenet of my essay is that we have never understood this, or wrongly assumed otherwise, which is why we...

Sound may not propagate as light, but I agree your Fig 5 is still relevant. To first deal with light; I'd posted the following to you on Petcho's blog.;

"All lenses consist of a medium, with a refractive plane separating the propagation medium (air) and the lens. The whole tenet of my essay is that we have never understood this, or wrongly assumed otherwise, which is why we cannot unravel observations.

The proof is not only implicit in all optical science but is in the consistent explanation it brings to observations."

The same new fundamental truth applies to sound. If there is no 'matter' then it can't be 'detected'. If there IS matter, then there is an interaction, and transfer of energy, BEFORE transmission to the brain at a given constant speed for analysis. We must consider and absorb that because it is oft forgot in application.

So sound needs an ear drum, or membrane of matter (a 'medium') to vibrate to be detected, agreed? If so, then if the medium is approaching the source, the frequency within the medium (once entered) has increased because the distance between wave peaks has decreased. The speed of propagation within the medium is CONSTANT (precisely as Fresnel's refractive index n is constant for any medium).

Ergo, though we 'measure' the 'observable' which is 'frequency' the frequency has only changed because the WAVELENGTH has changed from air to detector medium.

To REALLY now test your intellect to the limits, there is a second factor apart from relative media v which ALSO changes wavelength, which is relative media refractive index n. If the media are at rest with each other, then only n has an effect. If n is the same then only relative v has an effect.

This brings an entirely new understanding to science which, when consistently applied, resolves all the paradoxes. Unfortunately the familiarity of other assumptions still blinds most people to the true mechanism, so also to the solution.

Feist could not detect the returning signal without a detector made of matter. My figure 4 (sorry for typo, not 5) shows a close-up of the essential asymmetry of charge at the new medium surface electrons where there is lateral motion of the electrons with respect to the waves.

But ponder all the above carefully, and I'll respond fully to your other queries in a new post below.

With the suggested Cauchy-modified Euclidean notion of number, sinc(x) has no singularity at all. Pebble mathematics declares sinc(0) a removable or cosmetic singularity. I see the latter denotation indicating a wrong notion of number.

I would like to clarify: Kept for appropriate descriptions of physical phenomena must not include any singularity. Of course, the electric or magnetic field of a point charge or line conductor have poles for r=0. However, these poles are artifacts of models that are invalid for r=0.

I anticipate disbelief and hope for objections from theoreticians. Please tell me an example of an experimentally confirmed physical correlate to a mathematical singularity.

Eckard

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT

The issue with negative frequency is not hard to understand. First off if I were to build a band-pass filter if this were to select for negative frequencies it would mean I need an inductor with a negative inductance. This frankly does not make sense. How one construct a device to measure or that would admit a negative frequency? Of course one can construct any type of mathematics with a...

The issue with negative frequency is not hard to understand. First off if I were to build a band-pass filter if this were to select for negative frequencies it would mean I need an inductor with a negative inductance. This frankly does not make sense. How one construct a device to measure or that would admit a negative frequency? Of course one can construct any type of mathematics with a negative frequency, but that is not the same as physics.

It is the case of quantum mechanics a negative frequency does correspond to negative energy. The energy of a photon E = ħω has sign dependency with the angular frequency ω = 2πν. Suppose we have a particle with mass 0 > m. Suppose this particle decays into photons, then the photons clearly have negative frequency

mc^2 --- > 2ħω,

and of course if we have negative frequency photons we can have the converse process. As a result we may generate a negative mass particle.

Negative mass particles are quirky. For one thing Newton’s law of gravity F = ma = GMm/r^2 indicates that if we have M positive and M negative with

Ma = -GMm/r^2

ma = GMm/r^2

that the two masses are accelerated in the same direction. In fact if the two mass have the same magnitude the two race off indefinitely to “infinity.”

This is related to the issue of tachyons. What is the problem with tachyons? The relativistic momentum-energy interval is

m^2 = E^2 - p^2

where I have set c = 1. The magnitude of the momentum is greater than the energy and so m^2 is less than zero. The energy E = sqrt{p^2 + m^2}defines the velocity

v = ∂E/∂p = p/E

which since p > E is greater than unity. This has the meaning that the particle moves faster than light. The interval defines the Klein-Gordon equation ∂_t^2 - ∂_i^2 = □ so that □ψ = m^2ψ. The term m^2ψ comes from the potential V(ψ) = (1/2)m^2ψ^2, and the gradient of the potential ∂V(ψ)/∂ψ = m^2ψ is less than zero. Hence the vacuum state is not stable.

The relationship between the negative mass particle and the tachyon is seen if we consider the extreme boosted situation with p^2 = p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2 and p_z much larger than the other components. We may then write the energy as

E =sqrt{p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2 + m^2 }

~= p_z sqrt(1 + (p_x^2 + p_y^2)/p_z^2 + m^2/p_z^2}

and binomial theorem gives

E =~ p_z + (p_x^2 + p_y^2)/2p_z + m^2/2p_z)

And p_z plays the role of a Lorentz factor. This is a very classical appearing equation and the last term is interpreted as a mass μ = m^2/p_z that is negative. So the negative mass physics is related to the tachyon physics in this extreme boosted situation.

So there are a number of strikes against this idea of negative mass and negative frequency. Ashoke Sen has found that tachyons can form condensates in D-brane physics. These are special cases, such as the M2-brane in a black hole interior, where the tachyons are not free to propagate.

Negative mass particles are not quirky. They are the result of neglecting pre-mathematical issues. Strikes against the idea of negative frequency are only reasonable if this idea claims to attribute the negative frequency to physical reality. My essay tried to explain this as understandable as possible to all those who are ready to read it step by step. Negative frequencies are a must with complex function of elapsed time. They vanish with correct inverse transformation back into reality.

The most compelling reason to doubt the existence of absolutely negative mass, energy, pressure, temperature, tachyons, etc. is not that they were not experimentally confirmed. They will certainly never be found in reality if they are just artifacts of faulty pre-mathematics. I see no justification for the intuition that every mathematical object has a correlate in physical reality. On the contrary, It reminds me of the likewise naïve idea that thunder must be made by Thor who was imagined like a man.

You may believe in tachyons. I see them more fiction than science and perhaps meaningless. Do you see any possibility to refute my perhaps more important hint that the mirror symmetry of past and future time, which puzzled Hermann Weyl, can easily be explained as the failure to be aware of a tacit transformation with a complex “ansatz” and perform the due inverse transform after calculating in complex plane based on assumed physically correct only positive frequency. While I am also among those who are too lazy to each time perform all steps of transformation and return, I tend to know what I do and how to immediately interpret results I got in complex domain.

Eckard

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT

Hello Eckard, thanks for your comments on my essay, and sorry I took some time to comment on yours, am on holiday and on the road with my partner at present. I found some of your essay interesting - one thing, you say that Einstein's:

"...obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity."

The reason he thought there was no distinction between past and future is that Minkowskian geometry leads to that conclusion, and we often believe our old school teachers. But people are beginning to question Minkowski's work, as I have done in my essay. There have even been some rather desperate attempts to get rid of the lack of distinction between past and future, while keeping spacetime intact. I've argued that these don't work, because in spacetime, the distinction between past and future is purely observer-related, and depends on relative motion only. So it can't be about the collapse of the wave function, or other things that people ascribe it to, if spacetime is right. I've argued that there must be an error in the spacetime geometry, and that we have to look deeper to remove the problem.

I disagree that time strictly cannot be measured at all - a time rate can be measured in relation to another time rate. We don't know what causes these relative time rates, but they can be measured in relation to each other.

Lawrence just illustrated implications of the question you raised. Although Minkowski was a teacher of Einstein, he credited Einstein for the basis of his spacetime. I read this in German. There is definitely a good translation into English. I do not even blame the idea of spacetime for useless. Maybe, the divine bird's view on past and future is about as clever as the obviously only approximative linearizing of pressure in acoustics.

I tend to rather blame the not very well educated Dirichlet, G. Cantor and Einstein for bringing naive intuition into science. Minkowski called Einstein a lazy dog who often skipped his lessons on mathematics. I see a clever logical split in Einstein's thinking; he merged the divine perspective looking over all past and future with the perspective of a real observer.

Einstein made a related mistake when he used Poincaré synchronization. This view effectively binds the distinction between past and future to the observer instead to the object it relates to. I hoped Georgina did find out this flaw more clearly.

In all, we may resort in case of Einstein too to the Lessing quote Ebbinghaus made in his textbook "numbers" when he dared to admit indirectly that G. Cantor was horribly wrong:

If someone by an obvious mistake came to a valuable truth ...

Best wishes,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 05:44 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

In a comment to John, you appeared to disagree with several essayists who "seem to intuitively believe in the correctness of the very foundational assumption that reality has been built on mathematics."

For this reason I'd like to make you aware of a comment that I posted [to all FQXi'ers] on this topic:

In a comment to John, you appeared to disagree with several essayists who "seem to intuitively believe in the correctness of the very foundational assumption that reality has been built on mathematics."

For this reason I'd like to make you aware of a comment that I posted [to all FQXi'ers] on this topic:

"This essay contest presents a number of contradictions, yet it is enlightening and eye-opening. My thoughts at this stage, after reading most (but not all) of the essays is stated in a comment I posted on Edward J. Gillis' excellent essay. The gist is as follows:

Despite the assumption that Bell's inequality is valid, an assumption I reject, I agree with you that "in order to make current theory logically coherent, we need ... indeterminism...".

You say our brains, "figuring out what we can control" bias intuition in favor of determinism. Yes, but free will does not fit a deterministic view and my intuition is comfortable with it.

As I recall Bernard d'Espagnat noted that our world is based on three assumptions: realism, inductive reasoning, and locality (linked to speed of light). Believers in Bell tend to retain logical inference at the expense of local realism. Perhaps this should be reconsidered.

Several essays in this contest suggest that space-time, locality, unitarity, and causality are "emergent", that is, not fundamental, but artefactual, emerging from deeper fundamentals, akin to temperature emerging from statistical ensembles of particles. Yet they apparently assume that logic and math survive even when space-time, locality, and causality have vanished (coming 'as close to "nothing" as possible').

I have presented logic and math as emergent from real structure (in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics') and if I am correct, then one cannot assume that one can banish space-time, locality, and causality and yet retain logic and math. [To do so one must be a 'Platonist', having a religious belief in some realm of 'math' not unlike religious belief in a 'Heavenly realm'.]

My intuition and my experience tell me that reality is both 'real' and 'local' while they also inform me that logical coherency is *not* universal. For instance this FQXi contest contains a number of 'logical maps' that span various regions of the 'territory' [physics], but they are logically inconsistent with each other [and potentially contain logical inconsistencies within themselves.] If anything, this problem grows worse daily, as new math and new physics ideas branch in new directions. Despite the claims of various schools of physics, there is no coherent 'Theory of Everything', nor does one seem to be in sight. Many deny even the possibility of such. Given this state of affairs, I am ever more inclined to believe that the Bell'ists have made the wrong bet, trading local realism for logic, and losing on both counts.

Perhaps a new understanding that 'logic is local' needs to replace the [probably faulty] assumption that 'logic is universal'. My essay is one approach that assumes local realism is fundamental."

As I hope to aggregate arguments on this topic, I invite your response on my thread.

As I wrote in 3rd contest, the claimed freedom of mathematics contradicts to the belief that "reality has been built on mathematics".

In my 4th essay I revealed my view that Hilbert prematurely subordinated meta-mathematics and logics to mathematics, and that I am admitting reality ultimately as a fictitious intangible model of what agrees without exception with observations, experiences and predictions in contrast to illusions, speculations, and mysticism. Any organism without such model is doomed to die.

I do not see any reason why this model should obey merely intuitive conclusions or take theories for finally confirmed. For instance, Ohm was wrong when he concluded that a missing fundamental cannot be heard.

Do foundational question reasonably include doubts in reality? Well, several essays demonstrate readiness to even question such notions like causality and locality in order to save theories that were accepted. I see it already an attack on common sense if causality and limited speed of light are put on the same level with spacetime and unitarity.

While I do not know any evidence against causality, I see complete determinism a naive intuition and at variance with the possibility of a potentially infinite world. To me, free will is just a metaphor for a not yet decided future.

Engineers like me tend to put the 'as close to "nothing" as possible' into the drawer of signal to noise ratio.

While reality is necessarily 'real', I do not share your pessimistic guess that logical coherency is *not* universal. Maybe, it cannot be easily enforced. We all will hopefully contribute to the removal of unnecessary obstacles.

Best tegards,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 07:18 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I always enjoy your replies, and particularly your mastery of mathematical history, which you use to illuminate many areas.

I agree that "complete determinism [is] a naive intuition and at variance with the possibility of a potentially infinite world."

As for "While reality is necessarily 'real', I do not share your pessimistic guess that logical coherency is *not* universal. Maybe, it cannot be easily enforced" I see the 'logical ideas' we have as due to essentially separate logical structures that exist in our brains, some learned from playing baseball as children, some learned from sitting in calculus class, and these structures are not wholly integrated and fully unified, nor are they universally correct and compatible. The question is then whether these separate maps, or combinations thereof, can 'cover' reality coherently. Maybe, maybe not.

Of course this depends upon the correctness of my view that logic is structural in nature as opposed to mystical in nature, and also to the degree that structures (neural nets) that are connected uniquely in each of us can 'rise above' this dependence on individual experiences to be isomorphic with those of others. It's amazing that a few simple theories like Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, and quantum mechanics can bridge these differences in most physicists minds, but to expect it to do so for the "potentially infinite world" you mentioned seems to me to expect a lot. And this does not even take into account the dimensions of reality of which Kyle Miller speaks.

Yes, I believe that physical reality does not depend upon the perspective of an observer, but 'physics', the map of reality, generally does to a large extent.

And in quantum theory this includes "counterfactuals" and perhaps other concepts that may affect theory.

Although logical structures in the brain are quite flexible, I do not believe that the structures that we use to map the world are 100 percent integrated or otherwise seamlessly overlapping. Certainly these maps differ from brain to brain, and I believe they are similarly dis-integrated in one brain. And I am not sure whether or not there are logical issues having to do with the way our brains process self-referential logic.

The point is that physics (per d'Espagnat) is based on realism, logic, and locality, and most Bell theorists have decided to forego realism and locality in favor of retaining logic. But to me, logic is the most mysterious and least understood aspect of the three, while both my theoretical model and my mind tell me that local realism is valid. I cannot prove that the problem lies with logic, but I do not consider that anyone has proved that local realism is false. If I'm forced to choose, based on incomplete knowledge, I choose local realism and fuzzy logic (not "the" fuzzy logic).

As for Kyle's topic, I had missed it until I saw Georgina's comments. The topic is not an easy one to discuss. I have written in past contests about the effects on perception which I interpret as 'suppressing' metric awareness of distance and difference in favor of topological awareness of connectedness and unity. It is, in general, not a topic that goes anywhere as most who have not experienced it have no idea what is being discussed, while most who have experience of it have not the physical or metaphysical concepts to make sense of the experience.

The correct denotation of flexibility of neural structures is plasticity.

If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent.

Best,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT

Dear Eckard,

"If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent."

I think that the essays here (more than one hundred of them) show that physics does to a large extent depend upon the perspective of the observer. And they probably come as close as possible to proving that physics is also wrong to a large extent. It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged.

And while I agree that our neural nets are plastic and hence can learn, I do believe that -- regardless of how distributed over the net -- logical concepts and other concepts are discretely organized and overlap only to a degree, if at all. It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head, and this shows (to me) that minimal overlap exists between such ideas.

"It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head".

Well, split thinking may even manifest itself as a disease: schizophrenia. Georg Cantor's tragedy begun with his naive idea to count in excess of infinity. He ignored that infinity is a property, not a quantity. Having already announced an evidence for well-ordering the reals, he was unable to provide it. Also he declared having got his CH directly from God. While he believed being correct, he failed to prove it. He got insane although Zermelo saved his life work by fabricating AC in 1904/08.

Best,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT

Dear Edwin,

"It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged."

Well, perhaps not every challenged assumption is really questionable. The question which was put which are wrong can be put the other way round: Which are not wrong?

I already wrote and partially explained that I do not appreciate questioning causality, c, and time. You mentioned three pillars: realism, logic, and locality. While I agree with Bernard d'Espagnat on that the notions of physics belong to an empirical construct, not to the idea of ultimate reality, I tend to trust in that theories can be at least inappropriate. In other words, I do not exclude possibilities to find surprising mistakes in overlooked basic preconditions for the design and/or interpretation of experiments. The more sophisticated an experiment is, the more it might be prone to be wrongly based and/or commented on.

What about locality, EEs like me are calculating with fields of potentially infinite extension and potentially infinite transmission of signals. Doesn't even the pretty distant moon obviously act on earth by causing the tides?

Nonetheless I tend to agree with you concerning local realism, not primarily because I cannot imagine entanglement but simply because I consider much of modern mathematics affected by an arbitrary denial of unwelcome logics when set theory was accepted. Those like Spalt and Mückenheim, who openly objected were not tolerated. Only an Ebbinghaus could dare to indirectly declare Cantor wrong.

Best,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I agree that simply being challenged does not indicate that an assumption is wrong, and that most of the challenges are more likely to be wrong. Yet even if only a handful of fundamental assumptions are wrong, that seems very significant to me. On another thread some anonymous commenter claimed that FQXi was a waste of time -- that it was like looking for diamonds in a coal bin. But someone else pointed out that if the diamond is found, it make make the search worthwhile.

As for "fields of potentially infinite extension", that is an engineering approximation, but infinity is often chosen as the limit to force the value to zero at that limit. In my essay I deal with the 'extent' of the wave function and try to show that realistic orbital lengths may be hundreds of wavelengths long. In this sense the moon raises tides on earth at a distance approximately 30 times the diameter of the earth. So it seems both reasonable and far from "potentially infinite".

Is a diamond to be found in Ernst Fischer's essay? I tend to appreciate it because he arrived at the insight that there is no physical singularity. Typical FQXi members will appreciate it because it is based on the theory of relativity. The perhaps best criterion for a diamond is a check of its hardness which makes it useful.

I tried my best to present and illustrate the key insights in my essay as etching as possible, although I am fully aware of having no chance to get many scores with this attitude. Peter Jackson was the only one so far who intended testing them. Unfortunately he refused to answer my questions.

Incidentally I would avoid saying "far from potentially infinite" because to me potentially infinite is an ideal quality, a property, not something more or less close. What about the wave function in your essay, I did not recall having found

whether or not it symmetrically extends in both directions of time.

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I very much like Ernst Fischer's essay, and his conclusions, but I don't feel competent to judge his work. The problem is indicated by the second figure on page 4 of my previous essay, where I show Doug Sweetser's view of metric and potential maps. It seems to me that he has combined these maps to include both potential and metric, and that is unorthodox in my view. He also refers to "local mass density" which I understand to be ill-defined in general relativity. So I very much like his essay and would like to believe he is correct, but cannot justify certain of his assumptions. I'm glad to see his high ranking. Hopefully that means that more qualified reviewers also like it.

As for the wave function in my essay, the physical wave in not time symmetrical, although the analogous solutions of the Schrodinger equation can probably be considered to be so. The wave is left-handed only (not right-handed) which I think is associated with time asymmetry, and it has finite extent.

You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me. Since you are an outstanding expert, I guess you are much better in position to tell me some mathematical details and their experimental quantification than Newstead in reply to my questions concerning their essay.

Best regards,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 23:40 GMT

Hi Eckard,

I hesitate to comment on Mark Newstead's essay, which I have read but not studied. Rather than try to translate his answer to you [Aug 23, 2012 @14:13] I would rather address the difference in an EM wave and the C-field wave that I postulate is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear...

I hesitate to comment on Mark Newstead's essay, which I have read but not studied. Rather than try to translate his answer to you [Aug 23, 2012 @14:13] I would rather address the difference in an EM wave and the C-field wave that I postulate is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such components is of course the basis of Fourier analysis.

The key physical basis of such EM waves is their ability to propagate (through a medium or vacuum) far from the source of the radiation. In contrast, the wave that I describe is a circulating field (according to the weak field approximation to GR) induced by a 'mass current density' which has units of momentum density, mv where m is mass density and v is velocity. This wave is best viewed as a 'vortex' which has one field component, C, (versus two, E and B for EM waves) and does not propagate away from the source but travels *with* the source, soliton-like. There is no 'infinite' aspect to this wave but it does decay over a finite distance. Without the finite range of the 'trailing vortex' (analogous to aircraft wingtip vortices) the wave would not extend over the range of excited orbits and there would be no interference leading to quantized stable orbits.

You provided a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization, to an article discussing circular polarization, that contains a nice animation showing a circularly polarized E-field wave. Note that this wave propagates far from the source, unlike the C-field wave and note also that the E-field is a radially directed field from the axis of propagation, whereas I picture the C-field wave as circular (or cylindrical) circulating about the axis of propagation, and centered on the inducing source current density. This is a quite different physical phenomenon.

As for the 'left-handed nature' of this wave, the GR equation is curl C = -p where p is the momentum density. I interpret the minus sign to indicate left-handed circulation. This is compatible with many left-handed aspects of particle physics, from neutrino to boson, and even shows up in biological molecules. The implications are too many to discuss in a comment, but I find them significant.

Finally, you say "You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me". You are correct. I have combined de Broglie's wavelength-momentum relation p = h/lambda with the GR equation curl C ~ p to obtain: lambda (dot) curl C = h, where h is Planck's constant. This is interpreted as a quantized 'volume' and I show how an atomic orbit can be viewed as an integer multiple of such volumes. This is a new physical relation that has never been proposed before and probably takes some digestion from people who seem to think that everything is already known about quantum mechanics, and that we should just take their word and "shut up and calculate". In addition, I believe that there are other implications, based on a geometric algebra approach, which I hope to develop further in the future.

See me pretty helpless looking for something that could explain to an old EE like me which of the models of particles and waves may be already the correct ones. I am simply not in position to trust in presumably rather premature intuitions. I naively guess that particles are not at all directly observable. Aren't only their effects evident?

While I still like the idea that photons like phonons are merely fictions, neither Duda nor someone else seems to already offer mature models of elementary waves. To my layman-knowledge, solitons are not necessarily elementary waves but just stable during propagation solutions of differential equations. Thank you nonetheless for your highly appreciated effort to explain me a lot.

Poincaré’s method of synchronization assumes that a signal needs the same time from an emitter A to a reflector B as return from B to A. It is obviously correct as long as the distance between A and B remains unchanged. The synchronization suggested by Einstein in 1905 extends Poincaré’s method on the case that A and B are linearly moving relative to each other with constant speed. Einstein was not yet wrong when he argued that that synchronization requires measuring. However, he ignored that the simultaneity cannot at all be achieved by a single round-trip measurement ABA. Instead one needs for instance simultaneous measurements AC and BC with reference to a neutral point C. Having defined an A-time and a B-time, Einstein tacitly assumed A at rest (“Zeit des ruhenden Systems”) but B the moving system. Thomas van Flandern aptly criticized Einstein’s synchronization as desynchronization.

Einstein wrote: “Hence we must not attribute absolute meaning to the notion simultaneity. Two events that are simultaneous if looked at from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous events if seen from a system in motion relative to it.”

Of course, an observer cannot judge the temporal order of two observed events without further knowledge. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been based on the confusion between reality and what an observer measures.

Having read such good textbooks as for instance Oskar Becker's, I will read Manin's paper like a weak attempt to defend some presently mandatory views, a paper that reveals intuitions behind mathematics but neglects due logic clarifications.

I would appreciate if someone did try and took issue concerning what I tried to make evident to everybody in my Figures.

You now, we are partially supporting each other. I cannot at all judge whether or not your intriguing claim concerning the fundamental constants is correct. What you wrote on 3+1 looks a bit speculative to me. It reminds me of Stiefel, a friend of Martin Luther.

By the way, the expression three plus one was currently used for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the three Baltic republics and Westerwelle. I would avoid such mistakable expression.

EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?"

1. M&M. Yes. I've found that probably nothing matters more in unravelling the paradoxes...

EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?"

1. M&M. Yes. I've found that probably nothing matters more in unravelling the paradoxes than the process at refractive and reflective planes, and it's effects. I have a paper just accepted for publication discussing this and explaining the Kantor and B&B interferometer anomalies. The Maxwell near/far field 'Transition Zone' (TZ) fine structure at the surface of all matter controls the process. I's equivalent to Earth's EM 'shock' (see Kingsley essay Fig of 'Cluster' findings), and Feist's detector discussed above, where light changes speed by relative v to the new local medium c/n. Which is why it's found to be c in all media.

2. Kinetic Revere Refraction (KRR). ALL experiments find the same. (Ko, Chuang 1977, Mackay, Lakhtakia 2006). When observed from an incident frame, light at near normal incidence passing into a co-moving medium appears to be 'dragged' by the medium (Grzegorczyk 2006). Snel's Law is then famously violated by the relative media motion. But when the light 'path' in the medium is observed from at rest in the MEDIUM frame, it's found that the REAL path is REVERSED.

It is this acceleration by the observer into the new frame (and thus at rest in the propagating medium) that recovers Snel's Law from his new frame.

3. Now put the two together. In the bizarre 'non linear optics' effects Snel's Law is similarly violated at the TZ, Fresnel refraction becomes what is termed 'Fraunhofer refraction', and frequncy changes. The TZ position is wavelength dependent for aerial emitters, but within 1 micron of the surface of refractive and reflective planes.

The solution explains why moving mirrors reflect light at c wrt the incident medium NOT wrt the mirror. In fact the initial reflection off the protons is at c wrt the mirror, but the electrons form a magnetohydrodynamic shock (as Kinsgsly graph) with the 'air' side of the turbulent TZ at rest in the air frame, so re-emitting at c with respect to themselves, as may be expected. All then falls into place.

The 'incident medium is the 'approach' medium, which may be a near vacuum, but none the less the 'outer layer' TZ electrons are propagated in that frame (explaining photoionization) and re-emit in that frame.

When I test that model on the dozens of astronomical anomalies in existence, they all fall into place like a giant jigsaw puzzle; re-ionization, aberration, ellipticity, IFR, Pioneers/Flyby anomalies, galaxy recycling, lensing, kSZ effect, intrinsic rotation, singularities, quasar jets, frames last scattered, CMB anisotropic flow, curved space-time, the LT, twins paradox, the list is almost endless. My essay gives the simple kinetic logic. It may at first seem complex, but the only issue is unfamiliarity.

The issue is indeed of key importance. Shtyrkov (in Russian) tried an alternative explanation. The late Marmet's criticism of the Michelson/Morley experiment was a bit confusing and possibly not entirely correct.

If only you were more careful. You are persistently writing Snel's law. The usual spelling Snell refers to the Latinized name Snellius, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law .

Didn't I point you a while ago to near vs. far field? Wikipedia has been focusing on some peculiarities of antennas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field which are irrelevant for light and sound. My essay reveals the importance of directivity. Feist's transducer worked like a phased array or a collimator.

More tomorrow,

Eckard

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT

Eckard

The near-far field transition zone is far more important I think than we realise. Yes you did direct me to a link to an aspect, which I thank you for as it did indeed caused me to explore it's more general application as a phenomena than I'd understood, and it's central importance to the process of implementing local c at ALL scales and both at emitter and receiver.

It was discussed in an accepted paper currently awaiting publication, resolving the anomalies remaining from the disproof of Kantor's emission theory experiment. but I expanded that part after more research, particularly of the Kerr and non linear optics effects. The antenna aspect is just a glimpse.

As another astronomer I'm familiar with Dutchman Willebrord Snellius and commonly use the original 'Snel' (as also referred in the Wiki article). I accept the double 'l' has now become more common, but not 'lack of care'. Should we 'dumb down' all spelling to common modern use and U.S. English? Perhaps I suppose.

I agree Marmet's 'n' based red shift via coupling; "It is found that in ordinary conditions, the energy loss per collision is about 10^-13 of the energy of the incoming photon." (1988) for the Doppler effect, but he was simply incomplete.

One other effect is from the lateral motion of the particles during interaction. The other is more complex involving scale expansion of space combined with amplitude reduction (sphere expansion) giving an apparent red-shift. I won't try to explain it in detail here but it also refutes acceleration of expansion.

These taken as a set (with other aspects) the 3D jigsaw puzzle of nature comes together quite perfectly! I appreciate you are one of the few helping the model with attempted falsification.

I consider our present discussion innovative, rigorous, and related to a still not yet for good settled key question. Tomorrow is over. I apologize for being too short of time for providing a convincing reply. Wave phenomena are utterly manifold in acoustics, optics, and electro-magnetics.

You pointed me to the almost forgotten Wallace Kantor. This led me to what Ekhard Preikschat wrote on ether theory during the recent 17th annual NPA meeting. I hope, Valev, Perez, and others will join our discussion.

Best,

Eckard

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT

It's a great essay, but I'm left with a question: Is this projection of an overbearing God archetype in the comments section just a satirical performance art meant to prove how ridiculous prejudice can be, or does the author simply not practice what he preaches?

"projection of an overbearing God archetype"?? Could you please explain what you are referring to? What comments section do you mean?

Eckard

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT

Eckhard,

Perhaps I'm coming off as a little too harsh, and not making myself clear in the process.

I sincerely implore you to ignore anyone who makes comments that don't pertain to the applicability of your essay's point. For instance, some people made some inconsequential comments about the way in which you used the English language to express yourself. As a reader, I'm smart enough to gloss over those kinds of syntax "errors". Surely you're smart enough to do the same when you're reading other peoples' essays and comments right?

Perhaps you're still not catching my drift at this point, and so perhaps I'll give you an example of what I could have done (but ultimately did not do) in my previous, hurtful comment. In order to calculate the drag force vector, you need to calculate the wind's velocity relative to the cyclist's velocity. This involves subtraction, not addition (as you imply in your essay). That is, F = (Wind - Cyclist)^2 * blahblahblach. I didn't mention this in my original comment because ***it doesn't detract from your essay's main point***, plus I'm not a math/physics wizard and I know well enough that I make errors all of the time. Wouldn't it have been extremely annoying and uncalled for if I had come out attacking you by shoving this wind/cyclist trivium in your face, especially given that you had stated in your essay that its calculation was "obvious", and even more especially so given the fact that it doesn't actually matter?

Everyone makes mistakes, so just relax, please! You don't need to point peoples' errors out by beating them over the head. I am begging you, humbly.

I sincerely enjoyed your essay, and I learned about a lot of new things from you and Glenn. Thank you.

Let's assume 10 m/s each for the velocities of the cyclist and the wind blowing exactly from the side. The felt by the cyclist velocity can be calculated by geometric addition as sqrt(2) times 10 m/s. This should be obvious to yo.

What about mistakes, I have to apologize for misspelling Glenn Gomes' name. In the discussions, such errors happen perhaps to all those who intend to reveal factually relevant mistakes in so many essays.

I hope you did not learn from Glenn Gomes what I consider questionable set-theoretic stuff. I have to risk more "one" scores if I do not hide my admittedly hurting arguments.

Eckard

Misspelling of my name does not matter unless I can be confused with Ekhard Preikshat.

S Halayka replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT

Hi Eckard,

I figured that you wouldn't take what I said about him seriously. My main concern is that prejudicial classification of someone based on ethnicity is frowned upon here in Canada (and downright bordering on unlawful) -- and for good reason. Perhaps he was born in Montana, and your classification was totally prejudicial and wrong. So, do you know for sure that what you said about him was true, or are you simply being prejudicial? I won't hold my breath while waiting for a logical, reasonable answer.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = and the cyclist velocity is V = , then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = . Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = ; V = ; R = . The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = . The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

Apparently the comment system does not care for HTML-like vector notation.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = (10, 0, 0) and the cyclist velocity is V = (0, 10, 0), then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = (10, -10, 0). Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = (0, 0, 0); V = (0, 10, 0); R = (0, -10, 0). The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = (0, 0, 0). The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

I asked you to explain what you were referring to when you wrote "projection of an overbearing God archetype" and what comments section you meant.

Instead you seems to quarrel about whether the cyclist feels the air blowing into his face or sucking him back.

Each figure in my essay stands for something I consider important and I would like to defend against distrust. Didn't you get aware that I am claiming to have revealed several mainstream mistakes that are based on nothing but questionable intuition?

I mentioned the cyclist only as an example of obviously wrong intuition, and as it seems, you understood it.

Be sure when I wrote glenn or Glen instead of Glenn, this was not deliberately. Sometimes you will find such typos of mine even mutilating my own first name. Moreover, my English is shaky because English is not my mother tongue. I hope you may nonetheless understand my arguments and you will not judge them before you frankly uttered your objections and gave me the opportunity for a reply.

Pentcho, According to sources like Jammer, Stachel, and Phipps, Maxwell, who died already in 1879, was skeptical about Michelson's attempt to measure the velocity of earth re aether. Nonetheless, Maxwell's equations clearly described waves, and Hertz managed to exploit this approach.

Well, Newton in contrast to Huygens had already imagined light as particles. Einstein in 1905 only reinvented that wheel.

However, as far as I know, the word emission theory was first used as to describe unsuccessful attempts by the early Einstein and later Ritz to cope with the problem that Maxwell's equation are not exactly Galilei invariant unless - as argued by Jammer - one drops Faraday's induction term. In this sense, a developed emission theory never existed. Hertz "Electric Waves" 1892 already tried to obey the interpretation of the MMX null result of 1887. You certainly know that Michelson in 1887 did not mention a trifle: When he in 1881 reported an earlier experiment, he assumed an outcome twice as large that they expected in 1887. The corrected expectation was suggested by Potier and then elaborated by Lorentz. Since then it was perhaps very rarely questioned for many decades.

I agree with Marmet on that much effort was spend in order to disprove the null result while almost no attention was devoted to the possibility that the expectation of something else was unrealistic. Until now, the defender of SR tend to confirm SR by only demonstrating that emission theory is untenable.

I see at least four views:

- SR with Lorentz covariance, block time, length contraction, relativity of time

Presumably they are mutually excluding each other. Then at best one out of them can be correct.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT

Eckard,

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c). By advancing, ad hoc, his length contraction hypothesis, Lorentz made the experiment confirm c'=c and refute c'=c+v.

Please just confirm or reject the above statement (yes or no). We do need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period.

UNEQUIVOCAL was merely a discrepancy between an already corrected expectation and the outcome of measurement. This seemed to contradict to the existence of an aether.

You are correct in that those physicist who accepted this interpretation could either abandon the aether and consider light as particles or try and somehow rescue the aether as did Lorentz.

The speed with which a sound wave propagates in the medium air is independent of the speed of the emitter re medium.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT

Eckard,

I don't like the "shut up and calculate" principle but in this case it is relevant. The wrong expectations of Michelson and Morley were based on calculations which can be found in today's textbooks. In these calculations one should simply replace c with c+v or c-v and the null result follows, in accordance with the experiment.

Why didn't you demonstrate in your essay that the expectation of Michelson was wrong?

Could you please use the option to provide a link to a file or even a publication of you or someone else that explains your suggestion in detail?

At first, we should specify at least one textbook you are referring to. Perhaps it would even better to refer to something easily available online, for instance in Wikipedia. Prior to calculation the explanation you are promising should unequivocally tell us what is meant with c and what with v.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT

Eckard,

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

Then the authors makes the wrong conclusion ("The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame") but I hope you will not be misled. One can use the same calculation but assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

The correct conclusion is: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

"In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2)."

Wouldn't this calculation also apply for Feist's measurement? The values he presented in his Figure 7 do not confirm this calculation. That's why my essay called his experiment stunning. I looked for a plausible possibility to explain the undeniable and easily reproducible result of Feist's experiment. My reasoning is quite simple and hopefully understandable from my Fig. 5: The signal was emitted into the air with high directivity. It propagates within it with c. If the air was at rest, it would reach the position R_0 at the reflector after a timespan d/c. While the motion of air does not change this duration, the signal has meanwhile been shifted sidewards to the position R_2 by dv/c. The reflected from there highly directive component of the signal cannot return to the emitter E because it gets further shifted to the right and will arrive after once again d/c outside E. The emitter E can only see a diffusely reflected from R_2 part of the signal that compensates for the rightward shift during return. Seen from E it seems to come from a fictitious position R_2. Hence the length of return path R_2 to E amounts d sqrt(1+4v^2/c^2), and the total time T_2 of travel from E to R_2 and back to E (T_2= 2 + 4v^2/c^2) agrees well with the apparently dilated time alias contracted length in the direction of motion [T_1=d/(c-v)+d/(c+v)].

In my essay I wrote v/c=r with roughly r=0.1 in Feist's measurement. Motion of earth with about 30km/s re ether corresponds to about 30/300 000 = 0.0001.

With the expectation by Potier/Lorentz/Michelson, Feist should have measured cT_2/d = 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 plus-minus 0.0005.

You wrote: "Feist should have measured a factor 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 ±0.0005 which would fully compensate the apparent length contraction in the direction of motion. In other words, Michelson's null result was to be expected if Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other."

Please elaborate. For instance: If Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other, light propagates in ether just like sound propagates in air (the analogy is straightforward). So the speed of both sound and light, as measured by the observer, is independendent of the speed of the source but varies with the speed of the observer.

The speed of a wave relates to the medium in which it propagates. Feist's experiment and the MMX can be plausibly explained by careful reasoning.

Hence there is at least the possibility that the whole Fitzgerald/Lorentz/Einstein explanations were misleading.

Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency.

In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter.

Let me clearly separate two possible mistakes. If I am correct then the first was the presumably wrong expectation by Michelson which led to unjustified speculations. The second was Einstein's stunning mathematical alternative to Lorentz' attempts for explaining the actually unexplainable because fallacious "fact" of length contraction by Einstein.

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

Hi. Good essay! I like your ideas about how the abstract/ideal doesn't necessarily correspond to reality and about time and points. My comments are:

1. On time, I think that there is no independent thing called time. All time is is a sequence of events that physically existent states go through. If there were absolutely no motion in any existent state in the universe, there would be no time, IMHO. For people that claim that time is a real thing, independent of matter, energy and motion, I'd say: Show me where this "time" is. Point it out. This reasoning also implies that in reality there is no ability to reverse the direction of time. Even if events were to run in the exact opposite sequence (Z to A) that they had been running in (A to Z) , while this may mathematically seem like time running in reverse, in reality, I'd say that time is still running forward because the events in the sequence Z-to-A occur after the events in A-to-Z. Time is just a sequence of physical events. I think this is what you were getting at in your essay if I understood it correctly?

2. On points, I agree that a "point" is not a physical possibility. It seems to me that any state which has one or more of its dimensions as zero (not just approaching zero, but actually zero) cannot exist in reality. This is the problem with infinitesimals. While they're useful in the abstract, if one can never reach the boundaries of an infinitesimal amount (ie, it's always just a little bit smaller), I don't think it exists, at least in our numerical dimension.

Your style is different from Roger Schlafly's from whom I am expecting an answer. Perhaps you are also not Roger Pink who used to sign Roger below his posts.

You are questioning that the size of an infinite set is the same as the size of an infinite subset derived from it. While Dedekind did not use the notion set, he published this definition of infinity, and Peirce was proud of having found it independently. They "corrected" the old Euclidean tenet that the whole is larger than its parts and ignored Galileo Galilei who logically correct inferred that the quantifying relations are not applicable for the property to be infinite even if Galileo inconsequently still spoke of infinite "quantities". Any genuine in logical sense quantity is discrete in principle and therefore exhaustible. It does not have the properties of being endlessly extended and endlessly divisible. The mathematicians preferred to deviate from this logics.

When you imagine a series of subsequent states, then you are sharing the view you are denying. As an EE, I prefer to consider elapsed time as continuous.

Dedekind was certainly correct when he ascribe little importance to such sophisticated questions.

Did you realize that my essay also includes a not yet refuted argument against the MMX interpretation since 1887 as the only basis of Lorentz invariance, SR and all that?

Eckard

Roger Granet replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 04:30 GMT

Eckard,

I'm not real sure what your point is here, but I'll reply to your comment over on my essay:

Your comment:

What about the property of an infinite quantity to be not larger than an also infinite part of it, you will perhaps agree on oo + 1 = oo. Incidentally, Georg Cantor was not the first one who used the self-contradictory expression "infinite number". Even Weierstrass used it.

My reply:

I agree that infinity +1 = infinity, but I'd also say that infinity > 1 and that infinity is greater than subsets derived from that same infinity. What I'm getting at in my essay is that when you start out with a single infinite set, and try to compare the size of a part of it to the whole set, you have to consider the relationship of that part to the whole within the context of the single set (the experimental system being considered in this thought experiment). Taking the context and relationships between elements into account, it seems clear that the size of the subset is smaller than the size of the single whole set. And, yes, the point of my essay is that I'm questioning the assumption that they're the same size. This is the whole point of this contest.

Why not questioning Fig. 38-1 in Feynman's lectures vol. 1 where the relationship to infinity is not obvious? I accept that you are not very familiar with and less critical than I towards some fundamentals of mathematics. The mentioned figure shows a wave packet of "width delta x" similar to the so called Gauss pulse which extends symmetrically between plus and minus infinity. Such wave packet can be observed with acoustic as well as electromagnetic waves. Let's assume it travels from the left to the right then it has definitely a front to the right but an endless tail to the left. An infinite tail to the right would be non-causal because the maximal speed of propagation is c.

Feynman commented [my re-translation from German]: "Such wave packet has no concrete wave length; there is an uncertain wave number that relates to the finite length of the packet."

To me this comment is one more indication of lacking insight. At least the propagation of acoustic waves can me measured with high accuracy in principle and shows how the original N-shape of an acoustic wave gradually mutates into a wave packet similar to the mentioned figure. Admittedly one has to carefully measure the wave and avoid measuring the behavior of the microphone instead.

What about your use of the notion infinity, I am already avoiding the notion "infinities", and I do not agree on your first sentence : "Set theory is at the heart of mathematics".

Eckard

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 08:00 GMT

Eckard,

The following argument of yours, which is not even wrong, introduces irreversible confusion in our discussion:

You wrote (Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT): "Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency. In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter."

You seem to intend detracting from the MMX issue. Of course, emission theory relies on it. May we infer that you are unable to explain Feist's measurement?

I consider what you called "irreversible confusion" just a secondary mistake introduced by Albert Einstein when he postulated that the speed of light is constant without directly specifying what it refers to. He merely excluded the possibility that it depends on the emitter, and by misusing Poincaré's still correct observer-related synchronization he created individual realities of each observer or its inertial system, respectively. I expected Georgina Parrey to clarify: There is only one objective reality and only one true past.

What does confuse you? Is there at all the possibility that a confusion can never be resolved?

The only speed both relativists and antirelativists care about is "the speed of light relative to the observer". Einstein did not have to specify what the speed of light referred to because that was obvious. If he had known that you would blaim him in 2012, he would have written:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which, AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER, is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Meanwhile Einstein's mistakes are almost as boring to me as your refusal to accept that the emission theory is wrong although Newton, Laplace, and Biot were proponents of it. Nonetheless, I used the search function in the Fermilab translation you provided to me and found out:

You added "AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER", and Einstein wrote (only once) elsewhere "velocity seen by the observer".

Who receives a wave without any further information cannot at all judge c and L. He can only measure a frequency. This holds for electromagnetic as well as for acoustic waves.

I like your excellent essay and appreciate your viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

I apologize for not yet having checked your proposals for experiments because I was unable to open the files. I just wonder why you wrote: "When two clocks A and B are

synchronized through a GPS satellite in common view mode, their synchronization is effectively equivalent to e-synchronization." I consider Van Flandern correct when he called Einstein-synchronization a de-synchronization. This adopted from Poincaré method is only correct as long as A and B do not move relative to each other. It introduces an unrealistic observer-related view of reality. True simultaneity of events belongs to the objective reality of the objects where they happen, not to an observer who has merely a delayed picture from them.

Well, there are many strong arguments indicating that SR is wrong. What alternative theory do you favor? I didn't find the words Lorentz and Michelson in your essay.

Sapere aude gives: Phipps Jr. Dr. Thomas E., Urbana IL 61801, USA.

Best,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT

Dear Eckard,

We agree on the power of math to distort physical reality. And you have been a consistent voice in these blogs on the limitations of math as applied to physics. I have made a reference to your views on this in my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”.

Since the beginnings of my participation in these forums I have come to respect and rely on your thoughts and ideas. And on your support. I ask you to read my essay and share with me your thoughts on the arguments and mathematical derivations I make in it. Especially my proof of the proposition, “if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. This, together with Maxwells result, “if light is a wave, then the speed of light is constant” seems to conclusively argue light is a wave, and not a 'particle photon'. And this naturally infers the existence of a 'propagating medium' and the necessity for CSL independent of the 'source' and the 'observer' (if we consider that the speed of light can only be measured 'locally' to the medium of propagation).

A point of interest. Eric Reiter in his essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”, has presented experimental evidence for my 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy' idea. This played a crucial role in my explanation of the double-slit experiment, if you recall! You may be interested in reading about it.

So far I didn't get aware of many essays with important implications. I have to carefully read your essay as to possibly find something influential in excess of your last essay.

While my Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are merely improved illustrations of ideas I already uttered in earlier essays, my Fig. 5 is new and hopefully the key to the insight that, beginning with Lorentz, a lot of modern physics has been unjustified speculation.

Alan Kadin does of course still adhere to what turned out wrong if my Fig. 5 is correct. Nonetheless my gut feeling lets me support his opinion concerning waves and particles, and he uttered what I also am guessing concerning Hilbert space, cf. the essay by Swingle. You were a mathematician. Can you share our objections to Hilbert space?

You caused me to read and comment on the essay by Eric Reiter. I hope he will reply after reading the essays of Alan and me.

Best,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 03:40 GMT

Dear Eckard,

What I think of Hilbert space? I like it! As a math-think. But not as a physics-thing. But there are more fundamental formulations in physics wrong for physics, in my view. Take 'particle photons' for example. Or the Spacetime continuum. With 'eventpoints' at each 'instant of time', t. I have shown the Second Law determines 'physical time' to be 'duration of time', Δt. This may help explain the 'missing energy' which goes by the alias 'dark'.

What makes my current essay different is my claim any mathematical model of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical in essence. The fundamental question is: “why should our mathematical deductions be reflected in our measurements of Nature”? The idea that Nature can be completely described by mathematical models is a metaphysical belief. And in order to prevent physics from morphing into metaphysics, Basic Law of physics should be mathematical tautologies applied to measurements. I show Planck's Law, for example, is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

Roger Schlafly also questions Math in Physics. And his essay currently ranks first! While mine lingers between 'being and nothingness'...

Constantinos

P.S. Recalling an earlier discussion you had concerning the existence of 'negative frequencies', you may be interested to know in my formulation the de Broglie frequency and wavelength can be any real number both positive AND negative. Furthermore, I find no need to use complex numbers.

When I asked "can you share our (Kadin's and mine) objections to Hilbert space, I meant to how von Neumann introduced it as the space for physical states. You certainly know he wrote to Birkhoff in 1935: I do not believe in Hilbert space any more. Did he put emphasis on believe or rather on Hilbert space? It rarely happens that someone gets aware that his belief is just a belief and utters this as frankly as did Hilbert who was a finitist, see what member Ellis just wrote to me. More likely the crowd looks for remedies like Zermelo's AC or the meanwhile advanced to something valuable renormalization.

In order to get a more concrete answer I would like to specify my question to include your opinion on Kadin's ideas.

Concerning your P.S.: I never wrote that complex numbers are useless. In order to understand your notion of positive and negative frequency and wavelength I would need a more specific hint. Let me explain as simple as possible why, in principle, one did not need a negative quantity at all in order to describe reality: How large ever something finite might be, we may shift our point of view to its highest value and look only backwards.

In my view, Hilbert space is only a mathematical model of physical states. It has no separate physical reality apart from math. As all mathematical ideas, it is a 'think' rather than the 'things' of physics. And as I argue in my essay, I believe all mathematical models of what is the Universe are metaphysical in essence and so will ultimately fail. The only way out of this inescapable truth is to base physics only on mathematical tautologies applied to our measurements. As for your specific request. I have not yet read Kadin's essay and as soon as I do and understand what he is saying I will comment separately on that.

But I just needed to respond to you concerning my P.S. In my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength, these are 'rates' (see my essay Endnotes for the derivations). And as rates, they can be any real number positive or negative. For example, my local representation of energy in blackbody radiation is E0 eνt where E0 is intensity and ν is 'frequency' of radiation. Energy in physics is thought to be a 'wave' with a 'frequency'. Imaginary numbers are thrown into the math mix in order to get energy expressed as 'waves'. But I don't believe that is necessary. In my formulation we have an 'exponential of energy' and a 'growth rate' instead. Let me quickly add, I like complex numbers! And I find them very useful in many ways. But I just don't believe they are needed to mathematically represent radiation.

OK. I took a look at Alan Kadin's essay. Didn't understand much of it. But here is what I understand. Correct me if I misunderstand. He writes, “a matter wave is a real coherent rotation of a fundamental vector quantum field”. I understand 'rotation' and I understand 'vector field'. But what in the (physical) world is a 'quantum field'?

Alan seeks to change the current paradigm by keeping the same quantum ideas. But only with a new twist. Or rotation! It's a little like keeping Ptolemaic epicycles while talking about gravity. Though Alan may be able to get the math to work out and produce “ both particle trajectories and particle discreteness [that] follow from the dynamics of the quantum field”, I don't believe more math will fix physics! Only a 'physical view' that makes sense can fix physics.

I believe I have presented such view. Fundamental to that view is “energy propagates continuously as a wave but manifests discretely in interactions”. Clearly this resolves the 'wave-particle dilemma' and the 'measurement problem'. Furthermore, my derivation of de Broglie frequency and wavelength allow these to be any real positive or negative numbers. A new meaning of 'matter waves' is revealed.

Having read your new essay now, I felt uncomfortable seeing my name among so many viXra postings. While I like inverted words like cepstrum and I viXra provides the opportunity to publish without censorship, I did not use viXra and I guess, it might be difficult to find valuable papers in it. You quoted me without any obvious indication for having understood any of my criticisms.

Don't you understand that positive and negative de Broglie frequency and wavelength are mathematical artifacts that can be ascribed to the attribution of a sign to the direction of velocity? Kinetic energy depends on squared velocity and is therefore always positive.

You complained that Roger Schlafly has been ranking on top while you are allegedly saying the same. I am objecting to his "Lessons from relativity", and these are certainly welcome to the majority. I enjoy that he dared writing "Folly of quantum computing".

Alan Kadin seems to find not many support because he questions that the photon is a particle.

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT

Dear Eckard you write, “ positive and negative de Broglie frequency and wavelength are mathematical artifacts”. That may be true, but does not in any way illuminate the paradox of 'matter-waves' that is at the heart of many discussions here and the point to my last comment. There is nothing real about this view. Just more “mathematical artifacts” which you and I and others have been criticizing! (have I got that part wrong Eckard re:your criticisms?

In contrast to this sad state of affairs, 'growth and decay' is all real! No “mathematical artifacts” here! And that is what my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength reveal.

Your defense of Alan Kadin is admirable! I too support his questioning of the photon as particle. In fact, I mathematically prove in my Endnotes of my current essay the following proposition: “if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. Perhaps you have disassociated from my essay before you reached that part!

The idealist Hegel rejected atomism as materialism. Even Mach and Ostwald hesitated to accept atoms as real. I noticed that you supports the essay by Mark Feeley who does not just favor fields instead of particles, which I could accept, but he vaguely combines the fields with sterile Parmenidean monism.

You wondered why I feel intrigued by Alan Kadin. As I already stressed, I appreciate his style of reasoning. Standing 3D waves are like localized particles; they are different from propagating energy. Alan Kadin believes in Einstein's relativity. Nonetheless I agree with him concerning Hilbert space.

See also my attempt to challenge back-causation phantasm by Wharton and Ellis.

Best,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Hegel continuous to be among my most favorite modern philosophers. His “Phenomenology of Spirit” had a profound influence in my thinking. I draw much insperation and intellectual guidance from him still. But my criticism of “atomism” is different from Hegel's.

I am less concerned with “atomism” in Nature than “atomism” in our thinking. The “particle view” has dominated our thinking and our theories of the Universe since Newton and beyond. And though unquestionably successful, such 'mental frame' reflects Western values and norms which have their inherent limitations. I believe we've reached such 'theoretical limits' in Physics now. And breaking through this mental barrier requires we think differently.

For me, this starts with a 'non-quantum' view and derivation of Planck's formula for blackbody radiation. My mathematical derivation of Planck's formula does not use 'energy quanta' but simple continuous processes. Eric Reiter in his essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”, has presented experimental evidence for this. He needs our support!

Eckard, can you please comment on my mathematical derivations at the Endnotes of my essay? ( “The Metaphysics of Physics”). Specifically, 1) Planck's formula, 2) The Law of Inertia, 3) de Broglie equations with freguency and wavelength being any real number positive or negative, 4) “if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave” 5) my explanation of CSL in my reply to Pentcho under my essay.

Having no illusions I did not yet vote and will not do so until I understood at least those essays that I would like to support. I am not sure. Just after I wrote that something in the essay by George Ellis reminds me of making negative resistance an issue, and George Ellis replied imprudently, he lost his leading position. My numerical votes will not make such a difference.

Maybe you can help Pentcho. He seems to believe that he is entitled to derive from MMX and Pound/Rebka experiment that light consists of photons that behave like bodies. Most cranks believe that the appealing postulate of relativity is correct but c is not constant. Not just I agree with you that any wave propagates with its specific c, and of course, if something propagates with c then this indicates it is a wave rather than a body. Perhaps, nobody is interested in your calculations because they are not surprising.

In case of my essay I noticed several unfulfilled promises to comment on it. Why?

My essay touches many taboos and offers unbelievable relevant corrections. Virtual all mathematicians and physicists were told that Georg Cantor, Hilbert, Einstein, etc. were the greatest. They suspect that I, a nobody, can only be wrong. It is much easier to ignore all my arguments than to try and refute only a single one of them. The most helpful comment on an argument of mine was made by George Ellis when he hurt me by recommending Feynman's lectures to me. It will be troublesome to me revealing mistakes.

Best,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I think we can all lament the lack of real substantive discussions of the arguments in our essays. But some of us can claim more such discussion than others. I think you are among those with more! While I still wait for targeted replies to specifics I've made. Still, I am grateful for all comments. And in earnest seek to respond to all comments. To the extend of my...

I think we can all lament the lack of real substantive discussions of the arguments in our essays. But some of us can claim more such discussion than others. I think you are among those with more! While I still wait for targeted replies to specifics I've made. Still, I am grateful for all comments. And in earnest seek to respond to all comments. To the extend of my understanding of these.

You write, “nobody is interested in your calculations because they are not surprising.” Could you please elaborate on that? Specifically, please argue why the following are not “surprising”:

1)My Planck's Formula derivation using simple continuous processes and not needing 'energy quanta', as all other derivations of this Formula had to.

2)My mathematical derivation of The Law of Inertia, showing this not a postulated 'universal physical law', but a mathematical truism in my formulation; using the prime physis 'eta' (the time integral of energy)

3)My mathematical derivation of the de Broglie equations illuminating the real nature of 'matter waves', frequency and wavelength. Allowing these to be any real positive or negative number (not 'mathematical artifacts')

4) My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL.

5)My mathematical proof (and importance) of the proposition: “if the speed of light is constant, than light propagates as a wave”. This, note, is a different statement from what Maxwell has shown, “if light is a wave, than the speed of light is constant”. My statement clearly shows CSL contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. Thus falsifying the corpuscular nature of light.

Eckard, these are only a small part of my many 'striking' results. And only what I included in my Endnotes and under my essay discussion – new for the 'public record'. That others don't find these 'striking' speaks more on their expectations of what constitutes 'striking' than the striking truth contained in these.

We are all programed to 'meet our expectations'. And if we are looking for 'multiverses' and exotic Spacetime 4-manifolds and non-linear operators acting on Hilbert spaces, we could miss some simple truths Nature has placed in front of our eyes! Which truths our 'metaphysical dislocation' will not allow us to 'see'. What my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, argues is happening with modern physics!

re. your response to Eckard, Number 4. is really interesting. Where is that empty space (that the observer can perceive filled with objects)? Is it external to the observer or an internal fabrication (from received sensory data input), produced together with the "information"/ "knowledge" that this exists externally? Which then begs the question if that which is seen is not the external reality, what is there instead? and how does the unobserved space and objects relate to the observed?

It seems to me that though the observer is also a part of the foundational external reality, the fabrication he makes from received data is both a part of it and separate. As the electrical and chemical activity of the brain is a part of the foundational reality but the perceived output is not. (for analogy :The paper and ink of a book are a part of the external reality but the fantasy realm fabricated from the words (or symbols) is not.) I mentioned Roger Penrose's (Twistor space) description of the light cone and Joy Christian's recent work in my essay as I think they might helpfully describe, or lead to helpful mathematical description of, the data transmission through the pre-space-time environment from source to detection, which is the link between the two facets of reality.

So if you mean space-time when you refer to "this physical space which defines existence in our Universe", then maybe the observer really is not contained within it (but contains it ). It is a very strange set structure. I don't know what you will make of that. I think it is interesting and thought perhaps you might too.

I regret not having yet responded with worthwhile, helpful feedback on your essay. If it was easy I'd have done it long ago.I still have good intentions.

Perhaps nobody in the community will be surprised when we show that Pentcho is wrong. Only Georgina found your 4. claim interesting. You wrote:

"My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL."

If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space (Israel Perez's aether).

I will avoid a discussion with Georgina because she follows Albert Einstein who made the observer an issue. While observers are of course not outside reality, I see processes in the objective reality quite independent from any observer except if he is involved in the observed process. I suggest you will discuss with Georgina elsewhere unless there is a connection to my essay.

Pentcho got it: "Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result". I am sure this is definitely an annoying surprise to many physicists and also exciting and unbelievable to almost every layman.

Best regards,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 03:30 GMT

Hello Georgina,

We should be considerate of our host and move our discussion elsewhere away from his living room. He may wish to retire to his bedroom for the evening! Look for my response under my essay.

May we simplify the space to the straight line IR of real numbers and set the velocity between two points on it equal to zero. Why should we deny the possibility to move this tandem relative to IR?

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT

Dear Eckard,

All paradox (like all magic) plays on the 'mental framing' we place on the situation we seek to understand. In Physics, the paramount view should be 'physical' and not 'mathematical'. Don't we agree? The question we need to constantly ask is “what is physical”. Do you agree? The explanation I offered aims to define 'physical space'. And thus determine what is meant by 'physical existence'. All 'physical objects' in order to 'physically exist' must fill 'physical space' and require a duration of 'physical time'. The later I claim is assured by the Second Law while the former I propose is assured by the CSL. Which, in my way of looking at this, is the equivalent statement “all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy“. The 'physical object' defines the 'physical space' it occupies. In this view, we do not have physical objects moving relative to the space they occupy. In other words, the points in your comment cannot be moving in “tandem relative to IR”. Though mathematically this can be thought, physically this would require the points to be 'apart and outside' the line. To not 'physically exist', in other words! Am I misunderstanding you? Probably I am.

Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object. Engineers prefer just one space and (except for proponents of Einstein's relativity) a common time. Mathematically, we are always assume only one IR.

Regards,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT

Dear Eckard,

In math I am free to imagine! But in physics, we must always stay well grounded on the physical. And what is meant by 'physical'? My previous comments revolve around just that matter. And though we can imagine physical objects moving in empty space, such notion of physicality is imagined and prone to paradox. I suggest that 'physicality' is determined (along with the Second Law) by the CSL Postulate. Which, in my view, is equivalent to “all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy”. We just cannot physically separate a physical object from the physical space it occupies. In my humble opinion, many paradoxes result from just such separation.

You write, “Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object.” I answer: I am not imagining “individual empty space belonging to each individual object”. Just as I am not imagining a common empty space in which physical objects are in motion. But I am convinced that no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES! Aren't you? Perhaps rephrasing this may help to convey what I mean. No physical object can be in motion relative to itself!

Your confusion has nothing to do with my essay. Nonetheless, we should be able to clarify.

You wrote on Sept. 28, 18:28 "... all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space."

On Sept. 29, 22:10 you tried to explain: "no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES!"

Newton understood physical space as something absolute in which all positions relate to each other. He called space God's sensorium. On earth, this ubiquitous space is not empty but e.g. filled with air. It is reasonable to say that a physical object occupies at a given moment a part of this space, and it is also reasonable to define speed of a physical object relative to the position that it just occupied for an infinitesimal small time span. Mathematically dx/dt at x and t.

Your deviating opinion is not new. Aristotle (384-322) got aware of the formal seeming contradiction between rest and beginning motion. Already Zeno (490-430) made similar seeming contradictions an issue.

By the way, I consider the expression metaphysics of physics" not the best choice. As a Greek you know that metaphysics can be translated as after physics. Andronikos of Rhodos put the so called first philosophy of the physics by Aristotle as an appendix behind (meta) the main part.

Regards,

Eckard

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT

Dear Eckard,

You might say all of physics has to do with confusions we have about what Nature has in mind. And what we mean by what we say. Understanding this state of human affairs, I will not take offense! But do apologize for taking space responding to you under your space. So how else I should respond? I do not object doing this under my essay, if that is better for you.

More clarifying comments to confuse the matter further. By 'empty physical space' I do not mean necessarily the space we imagine without anything in it. The physical object and the space it occupies cannot be physically separated. But can only be imagined by us as separate. As physical space occupied by a physical object devoid of that physical object. My statement, "no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES!", can thus be restated as “no physical object can be in motion relative to itself!”. I think this should make the matter self-evident.

As to my use of metaphysics, it does not depend on the historical arrangement of Aristotle's books. But what the words in Greek actually mean: after or beyond the physical.

I like many aspects of your essay. I agree with you about the flow of time. And I think that it is the idea of infinity that is the real problem with a lot that is done in theoretical physics. As Hilbert said, infinity is an idea needed to complete mathematics bit it occurs nowhere in physical reality. This is related to the idea that in reality, physical *points* (i.e. entities with no extent) do not exist. From Wikipedia on "ActualInfinity",

"The overwhelming majority of scholastic philosophers adhered to the motto Infinitum actu non datur. This means there is only a (developing, improper, "syncategorematic") potential infinity but not a (fixed, proper, "categorematic") actual infinity". Sounds good to me.

Where I disagree is your statement "SR is kept more directly justified by the fact that Maxwell’s equations are lacking covariance." But Mawell's equations are Lorentz covariant: they were the one part of classical phyiscs Einstein did not have to alter when he developed Special Relativity. That is why for example the transformation between electric and magnetic fields follows directly from the Lorentz transformation laws (see my book with Ruth Williams: Flat and Curved Spacetimes).

I appreciate your effort to read my essay and hope my effort was not in vain when I tried to convey an important message with each of my five Figs.

I have almost nothing to add to what you wrote concerning actual and potential infinity. I already dealt with these questions in earlier essays.

What about lacking covariance of Maxwell's equations, I was initially confused by two arguments:

- MMX

- Maxwell's equations

Did you read papers by Thomas Phipps Jr. concerning Maxwell's and Hertz's equations? I gave just one reference. Others are easily to be found at Apeiron.

By chance I have at hand: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" Physics Essays, vol.6, number 2, 1993,

Thank you for your hint.

Sincerely,

Eckard Blumschein

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT

Daryl,

I apologize for late answering you questions of 22. Aug. 23:56 in Edwin Klingman’s thread.

Do not blame me for sloppiness in language. With “for observers” I meant as observers may observe it. I did not write “the” observer but observers. Different observers at the same location may observe it differently if they are moving with different velocities relative to the...

I apologize for late answering you questions of 22. Aug. 23:56 in Edwin Klingman’s thread.

Do not blame me for sloppiness in language. With “for observers” I meant as observers may observe it. I did not write “the” observer but observers. Different observers at the same location may observe it differently if they are moving with different velocities relative to the observed at distance object. There is perhaps no decisive difference between "according to" and "as determined by" while I tend to be reluctant using the biased construct "in the proper coordinate system of".

Writing “time-coordinate of one system” you are assuming that there is no universal time. You are a good fellow of Lorentz/Einstein. I see my Fig. 5 an understandable to everybody explanation why Potier, Lorentz, Michelson and Morley were wrong when they expected a non-null result. This is utterly important in so far it puts Einstein’s special theory of relativity in question too. What I cautiously called your weak parts are therefore not YOUR mistakes.

I consider you quite right: “The past, present, and future don't all "exist" in the same sense”. Didn’t you read my firs appendix? While the notions past and future exclude each other, the present time belongs to quite a different, deliberately undecided view. To me someone who writes past, present, and future, as did Einstein, does not show that he seriously deals with the role of past and future in physics.

By the way, the correct spelling in German is not ideel but ideell.

You wrote:

(Einstein’s) “relativity adds another layer, complicating this picture further, because it comes to mean that together with the dual meaning of the copular verb "is" in relation to the dimension of time, there must also be a dual meaning of the word "time" if the theory should be reconciled with a Heraclitean flowing present. Thus, the common-sense impression of "time" that we have when we consider present "existence" in three-dimensional space---which is what we refer to when we say two events occur "simultaneously"---must be separated from the sense of "time" that's described by any space-time coordinate system.”

I agree with the caveat that only the common sense notion – not impression – of time is necessary as to be concluded from my Fig. 5.

You added: “This is precisely because any claim that two events occur at the same "time" in the latter sense cannot be universal, since any change of coordinates describes one event as preceding the other; i.e., "synchronicity" is relative.” My Fig. 5 implies what other experiments also have shown: We may admit a universal frame of reference and also a universal time: absolute synchronicity.

If you understood this then you may reconsider your further reasoning yourself.

First of all, thanks for correcting my spelling of ideell. I had known that, but I think I confused it with the French.

Secondly, I certainly wasn't blaming you for sloppiness in language. I think that was your criticism in the previous post, which I agreed was an issue, so I was just clarifying the actual intended use of the word "for", which you pointed out could be taken to mean something else. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" and I agreed it was the latter and that the use of the word "for" is sloppy.

Finally, most importantly, from the rest of your comments I'm pretty sure you haven't read my essay despite, where I argued *for* an absolute cosmic time, despite your criticism that there are weak points in my view. I've argued that despite the way time passes in arbitrary frames of reference according to relativity theory, cosmology indicates that there has to be one true cosmic passage of time, against which time scales for relatively moving observers. I've pointed out that this means an absolute simultaneity-relation. Such a universal frame of reference and universal time does not---and cannot, according to relativity theory---come to mean absolute *synchronicity*, though. Unless you're denying SR entirely, you can't claim this because according to the theory two clocks in relative motion can't be synchronised: from either one's perspective, the other's rate has to be slowed. However, as I've shown in my essay, this does not mean that there can't be a coherent universal time that defines absolute *simultaneity*.

A bit pregnant is impossible. Either one denies the separation between past and future, then one has good chance to win the contest, or one denies SR entirely. In the first case one is a monist who looks at the world from outside, In the opposite case one does not leave the own perspective inside the real world. While I respect those who hope for a third possibility, I am sure, they will at best cheat themselves.

That's why my essay starts with Einstein's "something outside science" and ends with my "trust in inexhaustible chances" to reveal mistakes like those by Nimtz and by Michelson/Lorentz. I anticipate many to either ignore my essay or give me the lowest possible score after they failed or did not even try to refute my Fig. 5.

If I persuaded you to reconsider your belief then you will hopefully not be so naive to frankly utter your change from Saulus to Paulus in public. This could damage your career.

I have in fact proven the possibility of this third alternative (the one you state, not Pentcho: I'm for the two postulates, just not the third---that absolute space and time are superfluous and can't be detected---and I DO NOT sing Divine Einstein) in my essay. It is by definition impossible for "observer" C' to interact in any way with "observers" A, B, and C, who exist in an absolute "flowing" present.

You can call me Paulus if you'd like, because I do think space-time geometry is Lorentzian, and that the mathematical theory of relativity is correct---just so long as you know that I'm for a presentist interpretation of the theory that involves an absolute cosmic time and is therefore fundamentally at odds with much of what relativity theory is commonly supposed to describe.

Since this is an English site, here's my translation of that quote:---

Peter: "Let us talk today in detail about why you no longer believe, that (M) the inertia of a single body results from the interaction of all the masses of the Universe. O Saul! Saul! how can you so harden yourself against Truth that is as clear as day!"

Paul: "I can no longer share this outspoken conviction of yours; and if here lies the rock on which the relativity church stands, o Peter!, then I have indeed become an apostate. But to calm you a little about my heresy..."

(I referred to this in a footnote on page 3 of my essay, where I quoted Peter's later remark: "If the cosmological term fails to help with leading through to Mach’s principle, then I consider it to be generally useless, and am for the return to the elementary cosmology [Wenn es mit Hilfe des kosmologischen Gliedes nicht gelingt, das Machsche Prinzip durchzufuehren, so halte ich es ueberhaupt fuer zwecklos und bin fuer die Rueckkehr zur elementaren Kosmologie.]")

I learned from you that in gambling, if you bet one pound on a horse whose odds are 10 to 1, you will receive ten pounds if the horse wins.

I am not interested in and I cannot say anything about de Sitter's gambling. The same applies for Big Bang speculations. When Weyl used St. Paul and St. Peter as to dispute with Einstein, this might be different from my use of the metaphor Saulus/Paulus. You outed yourself as a presentist who prefers an absolute time.In the latter we seem to agree. What about my objection against presentism read my first appendix. Did you find some agreement with neo-Lorentzians like e.g. Selleri?

Best,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT

Pentcho,

Your logic is not compelling. You omitted the possibility that both postulates may be at least imperfect. The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space. The postulate of relativity seems to be quite logical. However, the with the same argument did Dedekind successful beg for accepting something nobody ever can prove. The Galilean relativity assumes a closed cavity. Electromagnetic fields extends endlessly.

Eckard, you wrote: "The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space."

You are right in a sense but note that, whether or not Einstein says it explicitly, the conclusions of special relativity are derived from the assumption that the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER or IN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER is constant. Just take a look at some textbook derivation of time dilation: first it is assumed that the speed of light is c in the observer at rest on the ground's (B's) frame and then the miraculous time dilation is derived.

So if the postulate of constant c is wrong when c is referred to the observer, then that's the end of relativity.

Even if Einstein's synchronization is logically unfounded and if there are an absolute space and absolute simultaneity; There are ample experimental results that obviously confirm for instance the impossibility to accelerate matter in excess of c.

It is true that for instance the atomic bomb was wrongly celebrated by laymen as an achievement of Einstein's SR. I agree with Roger Schlafly that Einstein has been overestimated. I see him idolized, and I contempt idolizing.

My intention is to clarify whether or not already Lorentz was misled by Michelson. So far nobody refuted my reasoning concerning Feist's experiment. Eventually I will show that Einstein's was not wrong in his resignation when he admitted that the now worries him seriously. My favorite essay was written by Ken Wharton. I consider it a beautiful collection of arguments in defense of Einstein whose weakness should be revealed one by one. Did you deal with this target?

Eckard

Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT

Hello Eckard. In English, I do not read this essay with your familiar on the annotation and successfully. That's what I understood. How to avoid mathematical physics determinism neobsnovannoy intuition? Suggest this approach. We do not know the origin of mathematics. On this, we are moving in its field intuitively, without analyzing. You can see the literal math, operates numbers and quantities. And you can see the abstract mathematics. An abstract mathematics is geometry and formulas. The formula E = mc2 literally. Maybe she needed a scientist to make a nuclear bomb. But in school textbooks it unnecessarily. Abstract formula gave M.Plank. It has not yet begun to analyze. Physics necessary abstraction. But this is metaphysics. A bit of metaphysics in my essay "The information - quantum energy balance" of 30 August.

Neobosnovannaja intuicia = unfounded intuition. Neobosnovannoy = of the unfounded ... ? I can only guess what you intend to say, and I noticed that you did not yet compare physics with balanced control in a power grid (IEB) but you also repetitiously referred to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Immanuel Kant stated: "Spsce and time are quanta continua." I do not disagree.

And yes, mathematics is ranging from discovered most unavoidable logic to wildly speculating individual creations.

Incidentally, Orenburg is only about 500 km remote from Kasan where Shtyrkov lives. Do you agree with him?

While the English translation of your essay is readable to me, I do not deal with consciousness.

Instead of humble revelations of which basic assumptions are wrong and providing references to possibly questionable work, essay 1410 offers an impressive bundle of alternative ideas of a single genius, dealing even with ball lightning.

To me, the text of 1410 is a bit hard to digest although I would like to confirm that your English is nearly perfect.

I wondered why my computer warns me about a possibly not trustworthy source when I intended to get explained what SPF-symmetry stands for.

What about my objection against Einstein synchronization, I suspect a round trip measurement should entirely belong to either the past, or in case of preparation to the future in order to be reasonable.

Can you offer an explanation of Feist's measurement?

Eckard Blumschein

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 08:44 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

For a moment I felt a bit ashamed because you treats me with the same sentences as you already treated others. Doesn't my essay deserve better? Then I looked at your biography and remembered Vietnamese students of mine. If I recall correctly, your first name might be hai, the last one. All my students from Vietnam, China, or Japan were distinguished by extraordinary high motivation and diligence. I guess, in particular in Hanoi more of the elderly people speak French or German than English.

You wrote: "It would be more reasonable if we develop an essay contest ... ?" I guess you meant "Would it be ... ?"

You wrote: "... the movement speed of light in the atmosphere on Earth averages about 90.000 km / s". Perhaps your command of English is better than your knowledge in physics.

I hope you will be able to nonetheless understand at least in part my claim that my essays 833 and 1364 provide correct and necessary corrections to what you aptly called "inveterate" assumptions.

Best wishes,

Eckard

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT

Dear Teacher Eckard Blumschein

Very sorry for making "teacher" sad.

My name is Hai: English meaning : Sea.

Expect teachers sympathetic to the my English as "computer automatically type".

Really grateful Teacher was pointed out errors "very silly" about the speed of light in air is 90.000m / s (was misspelled 90.000km / s), although this will not change the problem stated in my essay.

The teacher's question about the "Would it be .. (required) .. more next competition to solved the issue has been raised in this competition."

And also expect teachers sympathy for not review essay of teachers is because:

measures that teachers have used is different measures of me, so I do not want to comment when we do not have the same point of view, to avoid the occurrence of "conflicting ideologies", and of course also with the problem the "inveterate" or "deep-rooted" that teacher have requested.

Hello Eckard. Intuition gives some information that you can find the right one. Correctness of the information verified in many ways, this is obsnovanie. "Curvature of space" - a false justification. Kant wrote better understood as having no scientific and educational importance. Kant used the excellent education he received. What is a continuum? Black body radiates heat. That means, the heat in the form of photons? Kontinnum - continuous medium malostrukturirovannaya, simple. Ether, water, gravity, light - continua. Time is of the origin of odnovrmennosti. Shtyrkov Atsyukovsky and right, the ether is. Now a physicist, Einstein, that she does not need air. Origin of the substance, in all their diversity, must explain the physics - biosubstantsy, minerals, metals, and other gases. That physics explains that biology will confirm. In this origin needs air. Physics tells of the origin of matter, in general, without going into details. Poiskhozhdenie with ether - is in the details.

Try this link and look at Fig. 1 for the experimental setup and Fig. 7 for the most accurate result. Don't worry about wrong by a factor 10 numbers (12 km/h instead of 120km/h) on the velocity axis. The red curve shows expected (according to Lorentz's correction of Michelson's 1881 calculation) values of average velocity c_2 in percent of velocity at rest.

While the claimed isotropy was questioned e.g. by Bruhn, the measured data are undoubtedly correct and are to be explained. My explanation seems to be the only plausible one, and it does also plausibly and quantitatively explain the unexpected null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. See my calculations at pages 8 and 9.

Eckard

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I read your essay with interest. I too take an approach, without regard to the conventional notion of time. In fact my attempt is to extend the principles of TD to the rest of physics with a timeless Geometric approach. It concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between inter-related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite...

I read your essay with interest. I too take an approach, without regard to the conventional notion of time. In fact my attempt is to extend the principles of TD to the rest of physics with a timeless Geometric approach. It concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between inter-related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite understandable visually. I am sure you would like my essay

The gist of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

1. It identifies the PRIMORDIAL Foundational Problems in Newtonian Mechanics (NM) that runs through ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS. (Please see the short attachment “Primordial Foundational Problems”).

2. It eliminates the problematic concept of POINT-MASS (common to NM, QM, SRT) to allow internal structure for a particle. This in turn enables to resolve the other interconnected primordial problems.

3. The result: By taking these two steps, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF SRT are DYNAMICALLY derived by identifying the trignometric relations within the energy-momentum equation, and by restoring Galileo’s principle of relativity. (I request you to have a glance at the attachment – “Geometrodynamics of Energy” to verify this claim). - See also comment by L.B Crowell below.

4. This achievement will establish that I have not just treated these problems at the level a speculative discussion as in other essays, but that the problems discussed are real problems, by virtue of their solution leading to the unification of NM and SRT (by finding an equation of motion which is equally valid for slow and very fast motions).

Here is the impartial comment made by Ben Dribus (essayist in no 2 position): “One thing I will say is that it appears as if you made an honest effort to answer the question posed by the essay contest rather than just writing down your favorite ideas about physics. You will notice that I made a similar effort….. I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing”.

Here’s the comment made by LB Crowell (essayist at no. 20 position): “The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. …... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity”.

In order to enable follow up of your comments easier for me, I request you to reply to this under my essay : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Hi Eckard. Translation is indeed a problem. I own text, translated from English into Russian, I learn the hard way. Machine translation. I read your answer. The reason for the light, I did not write anything. The women also did not write. On today's physics: Einstein's physics in the air does not need (Latin - aether). Atsukovsky I called in addition to Shtyrkova. Atsukovsky better not to read, write bad waste of time. In my essay should be questions. I can answer them just me. This is a true metaphysician. Sincerely, Vasily.

Let us assume you are right - based on the ether theory (stating that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source), Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result, not otherwise. This implies that the null result is incompatible with the miracles, length contraction in particular, later introduced by Lorentz and Einstein.

On the other hand, time dilation and length contraction are direct consequences of the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source - initially you don't even need the relativity principle for the deduction - see David Morin's text, pp. 12-16.

So David Morin's (valid) inference shows that you are wrong - there can be no reasonable expectation of the null result based on the assumptions that, on the one hand, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, and that, on the other hand, there is no length contraction.

(1) "what experiments showed was that light surprisingly moved with speed c in every frame, no matter which way the frame was moving through the supposed ether. (2) There were therefore two possibilities. Either something was wrong with Maxwell's equations, or something was wrong with the Galilean transformations."

Inspired by Feist and in agreement with Cristov, Marmet, and others I question (1). This means, I see (2) and all other implications unfounded. Morin's chapter did not tell me anything new or anything relevant. Which inference by Morin do you consider valid? The speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length, merely an observed Doppler effect.

It was the disparate attempt to explain the unexpected null result that caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to imagine the length contraction of the interferometer arm as an ultimate remedy.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT

Eckard,

You believe that "the speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length..."

I tried to call your attention to the fact that the two statements are incompatible. Length contraction (initially introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz) can easily be derived from the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. I referred you to David Morin's text (pp. 12-16) because his derivation is good and easy to understand.

Sorry, it is not a matter of belief but an experimentally proven and undisputed fact that the front of an acoustic wave in air propagates relative to the air independent of possible motion of the source or the receiver. If you know that a missile can travel faster than the sound it emits then you may conclude that there is no superposition of the two velocities. Otherwise the sound would be heard before the missile hits the target.

I posted the following in George Ellis' thread but it has disappeared. (Just now reposted anyway). I am copying it to you now.

Dear George,

I shall clear the theoretical side first, and address the personal allegations/misunderstandings later.

George wrote: “The Lorentz transformation equation ….. is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators, ……. I show how the standard relations between electric and magnetic field due to relative motion follow from the standard Lorentz transformation laws, and specifically the equation [x’ = gamma(x –ut)]”.

Eckard wrote: ‘Being an old EE, I cannot confirm that the Lorentz transformation "is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators. … This relation is tested millions of times every day by the way standard electrical equipment operates."

It is no surprise that among those who question the strict validity of SRT, a very high number of them are EE’s. This is because, SRT theorists, dogmatically and zealously, for propaganda and pedagogic reasons tend to cross the line of SRT’s area of applicability (v tending to c), and try to generalize it to claim that it applies for all conditions as regards “standard electrical equipment” etc. And by such exaggerated claims these theorists only discredit and bring disrepute to SRT. We must remember, the theory has been named “Special Relativity” because it HOLDS STRICTLY TRUE ONLY for the condition v tending to c. And for this reason in French it is called the “Restricted theory of Relativity”, i.e. the theory is of restricted validity to the condition v tending to c.

a) In all experiments conducted on earth on fast moving particles, beginning with Kaufman’s experiments from which Lorentz elicited the empirical equation by iteration of data, the term u in the equation is earth’s orbital velocity. So I would have been surprised if this term did not appear in electric motors as well under analogous conditions.

There is no dispute about George’s statement if it is referring to a term involving earth’s motion being involved in electric motors and generators. However, “involvement” does not mean it manifests clearly under all conditions. It will manifest clearly in strict conformity to the equation only in case of high electron velocities (theoretically). As the electron velocity drops progressively, the results will conform less and less to the equation. Even at moderate velocities, there will be a ‘fuzzy term’ involving u, if very accurate observations are made, but it will not strictly confirm the equation. At very low speeds at which ordinary electric motors run, this term will be almost imperceptible. This is what Eckard is confirming by his experience as an EE.

Here is why.

(Please open the attachment to refer to the diagram).

I have already discussed the physics of LT in my previous post. Now let us look at it from a logical view point.

If the LT equation holds strictly for the condition v/c tending to 1, then the equation that will hold for all velocities is

x’ = (v/c)(c –u)t.gamma.

= gamma.vt – gamma.(ut.v/c)

If we take the term gamma.(ut.v/c) = ut sin(theta) (see the diagram attached). When v/c tends to 1, this term looms large approximates to ut. And it forms the area of applicability of SRT.

Where v/c tends to zero the term vanishes, then x’ = gamma vt. This is the area of applicability of Newtonian mechanics. For all experiments conducted on earth gamma = 1.000000005. However in Newtonian measurements an accuracy of the order of 10-8 is not realized. Therefore, by rule of thumb, in practice the equation for displacement of x = vt has been accepted.

(See Attachment)

There is a vast area in between the two areas of applicability, where mixed results will be obtained.

By recognizing the equation x’ = v/c(x –ut).gamma, it breaks down the areas of applicability and automatically unifies Newtonian mechanics and SRT.

I understand that you are upset because George Ellis deleted your post. Let's see his reaction as an indication of lacking factual arguments. You are quite right; Neither those electrical engineers who are dealing for instance with motors bor those who are dealing with electromagnetic waves need Einstein's relativity.

Yes, George Ellis provided a very obvious example for unfounded belief-based propaganda. In case one cannot easily decide whether or not such statements are correct, emphatically exaggerated claims tend to be not trustworthy.

Let me quote Earl Bertrand R:: "The solution of the difficulties which formerly surrounded the ... is probably the greatest achievement of which our age has to boast." Does this sound serious to you?

George Ellis pointed me to vol. 2 of the famous Feynman lectures. He is right, Feynman was teaching electro-magnetics from his relativist point of view. When I read the text decades ago, I did not yet doubt that Einstein's relativity is correct and I admired Feynman's elegant while speculative rather than oriented on the needs of engineering style. So far I have only vol. 2 at hand. Feynman refers there to his intro in relativity in vol. 1.

Thanks. I am not really upset, but it shows what kind of a set up FQXi is.

I think, the elimination of my posts happen automatically at FQXi on Ellis' instructions. Anyway, even if it is othrwise, when someone 'reports a post as inappropriate' it is flagged for the administrator to check whether it really has inappropriate subject matter. If the administrator does not use his proper judgement or acts in a biased manner, then FQXi is running this competition for the benefit of a pre-selected few with a definite set of ideas.

(Same story as before. The post on George Ellis' threadd has disappeared. So I am posting it here for the record)

Dear Eckard and George,

1. There is a connection between MMX and Maxwell as Eckard has pointed out. In 1878, one year before Maxwell died he suggested an experiment to detect that effects of the second order. It is this idea that Michelson took up and used for the experiment of 1882 onwards.

2. George wrote: “The way a moving charge generates a magnetic field follows directly from the standard Lorentz transformation matrix L^a_b applied to the electromagnetic field tensor Fab, see page 349-353 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes for an explicit derivation of this relation. This is a valid derivation of the theory underlying all use of electromagnets in electric motors and relays. My statement is correct”.

a) Are you not confusing between

Lorentz transformation x’ = gamma(x –ut) and

Lorentz Force FE = (q2v2) (Mu)0 /2(pi)r ?

b) Aren’t electric motors and relays governed by Biot-Savart’s law and not Lorentz force?

Let me explain in what my notion of reality differes from yours. Ken Wharton and I agreed on that there is only one objective reality. Ian Durham spoke of slightly different ones.

I wrote on p. 4: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

It does not matter whether I correct or wrong when I assume the reality of an object of concern. We can neither observe nor prepare for sure and completely such reality because it is a generally assumed attribution, not something tangible.

The past is the domain of reality. The future is the domain of possibility. The notion present means a deliberately undecided mix of both and is therefore not suited for physics. In reality, expected events did not yet happen.

It is reasonable to assume that one and the same object is only once real. Two different signs can be used for instance in order to numerically describe opposite directions. Given a calculation yields positive and negative frequencies. May we necessarily attribute different physical meanings to them? No. Because of lost information with almost always skipped logical steps from reality to the mathematical model and return, one has to check the mathematical result and if necessary omit artifacts, in particular the advanced solution.

Everybody will agree that for instance a negative length is unreal. It can however be necessary to not omit it as long as one operates in a fictitious mathematical domain. See my Figs. 1 and 2.

Regards,

Eckard

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 00:36 GMT

Dear Eckard,

you wrote: "the past is the domain of reality". That is an opinion based upon a particular understanding of what reality is. You are I think referring to those things that have been measured or observed. Do things only become a reality upon observation?

I agree that -The- (unwritten) future is open to possibility. However knowing that perception comes after actualised events aren't those things now existing ahead of the output realisation or manifestation of them also in a more foundational way in a domain of reality, (ie. one that is ahead of the experienced present, not the past).

Amanda Gefter has written about each observer having their own observed universe.Something to which I have also alluded. In that context an object can be be observed as a reality more than once, as each observer will manifest the object from the data he/she /it has uniquely received.

While I probably don't fully understand the sign problem you are talking about, it does seem to me that whether there is a rotation to right or left does make a difference as it will alter the data that is received and so the output manifestation produced from it. Which could make an obvious difference for a non uniform source object. I am not saying this to be annoying or disrespectful but just to give another perspective- that may or may not be relevant to your argument.

By the way I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my essay as I respect your knowledge and very sensible consideration of matters.

Thanks for the reference. I think that result of Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment by Feist prove again that observer can not with the help of internal two-way measurements of signal speed to find its velocity in space. If you take in account in the Feist experiment Lorentz contraction then the formula for signal speed gives dilation of time.

I agree that - if my explanation of Feist's experiment is correct - the MMX did not refute a medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate. Aether theories must not be excluded. Shtyrkov's measurement seems to be trustworthy.

You seem to be the first one who suggests relativistic effects in acoustics.

Eckard

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:41 GMT

Dear Eckard

I take your essay as querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far: and I agree with you on this. I also agree on your take on time, and on your comment "It is mistake to keep differential equations for primary. They are merely abstractions from the originally integrating relationships" Correct: and those integrating relationships involve boundary conditions or initial conditions whereby global relations constrain local physics - in concordance with my own essay.

I disagree on special relativity, as you know. I believe it's very well established. Any experiments of quality that disagree with it must of course be take seriously: they must be repeated by independent experimenters to check their validity. But you'll find it hard finding experimentalists willing to invest time, money and effort into that project: given all the other experiments that support SR, it is so unlikely it will prove anything interesting.

I am delighted. You are the first one who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public. I know that there are no experts who dare to entirely agree with me.

Mathematicians are reluctant to question arbitrary instead of logical definitions of basic notions like number, or continuity.

When I wrote "originally integrating relationships", I tried to remind of the physically implemented integrators used in analog computers. I did not write "integral equations". Yes, there are a few processes in reality that can be well described with initial or boundary conditions. However, most processes do not have an exactly defined begin and also no exactly predictable end. You may believe in Adam and Eve. Repair of defect genes requires a larger population.

What about Feist, I deliberately quoted Bruhn because he did not even bother to search for a possible mistake. I see myself proficient enough in electronics and acoustics as to confirm that the measurement by Feist was correctly performed.

In contrast to e.g. the measurement by Nimtz that was too involved as to be not possibly flawed, and to OPERA that also demonstrated how difficult it is to avoid flaws in very sophisticated systems, the measurement by Feist was too simple as to hide an error. While a check of the validity of the experiment is most likely not necessary, my explanation can be wrong. It is so far the only plausible one.

Contests and discussions at fqxi are a market place of old and new arguments.

- I maintain that the ear can definitely not analyze future input.

- The expectation of a non-null result for the MMX was wrong if my explanation of the experiment by Feist is correct.

I am asking myself: Doesn't this render the remedies by Ritz, Lorentz, or Einstein presumably unnecessary? Don't virtually all experiments that are claiming to support SR only confirm what also is valid with a preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, and an objective separation between past and future? I appreciate your helpful readiness to provide hints to antitheses.

Sincerely,

Eckard

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT

Dear Eckard,

George may be the first one in academia "who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public", but you have a number of friends who do agree with you. For example I remarked above that:

"We hold the mathematical concepts, set theory, calculus, etc., in our heads forgetting where the logical holes are located. It is very good that you continue to remind us that holes exist and show us where some big ones are located..."

and I agreed with your following statement, "Tolerating an overlap of mutually excluding models is certainly no satisfactory solution."

So yes, it's great to have someone with 'skin in the game' agree with you, but don't forget your friends! We also agree with your "...querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far"

I mentioned [20] Nimtz. The community of physicists was unable to immediately and clearly demonstrate in what he was wrong when he consistently measured propagation speed in excess of c. Isn't this alarming? He was of course wrong.

I quoted Bruhn as to demonstrate how arrogantly genuine experimental results are ignored. I vote for more effort also concerning the very basics of mathematics.

When Roger Schlafly suggests to decouple mathematics and physics this might be popular. Of course, many models of reality are not just not trustworthy but they can presumably not at all be rescued by any corrections. Nonetheless, I see any agnosticism welcomed by those who are lazy and coward.

I reiterate what I wrote in 833: If the essence of mathematics is its freedom as claimed by G. Cantor, then mathematics cannot be as fundamental as usually claimed for a correct description of reality.

Expect teachers sympathetic to the my English as "computer automatically type".

Really grateful Teacher was pointed out errors "very silly" about the speed of light in air is 90.000m / s (was misspelled 90.000km / s), although this will not change the problem stated in my essay.

The teacher's question about the "Would it be .. (required) .. more next competition to solved the issue has been raised in this competition."

And also expect teachers sympathy for not review essay of teachers is because:

measures that teachers have used is different measures of me, so I do not want to comment when we do not have the same point of view, to avoid the occurrence of "conflicting ideologies", and of course also with the problem the "inveterate" or "deep-rooted" that teacher have requested.

Because my English is shaky I am often not sure whether or not I am understanding essays or discussions correctly. For instance 1410, Sep. 13, 09:04:

"If we have for the particle Mvc then the speed of particle is v. If the speed of particle is smaller then v in the case the momentum of particle is smaller then p and the particle has no energy pc/gamma = Mvc."

- smaller then or smaller than? I am not sure.

I hope my mistakes, e.g. assessed instead of accessed, are not misleading.

I did not even manage to access so many essays. I wonder how Sergey Fedosin selected those who were worth to get notified about his assessment. Maybe he intends urging me to read his essay? Well, maybe it needs just time for me to grasp why his nesting does not fit into a frame of absolute reference? Peter Jackson already often put me in the drawer of the stupid ones who do not understand his visions.

Eckard

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT

Dear Eckard,

You present some good ideas here. In particular, I think that set-theoretic issues are very relevant to physics. I have run into the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice in my own efforts to understand physics. A few other thoughts:

1. I agree that past and future are objectively different from each other, and that the future is not yet determined. There are a number of ways in which an objective arrow of time can arise. I prefer to take causality as fundamental, in which case time merely agrees with the direction from cause to effect. But even theories with "emergent time" like Barbour's shape dynamics can distinguish past and future by means of "asymmetry of configuration space."

2. I don't know if differential equations will ultimately be good enough even with boundary conditions. This is because differential equations require a differentiable structure in the interior of the region being modeled, and I think this may be too much to assume. Integral equations are physically better in my view, but much harder to work with mathematically.

3. I agree that although "reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism."

4. I think SR probably breaks down on small scales, but that is a long story!

For decades I understood SR as silicon rectifier. Only discussions here on FQXi caused me to question it. Such heresy was anyway impossible during my scientific career.

Meanwhile I tend to say beauty and Einstein's relativity are only in the eyes of the beholder/observer. I would, however, like to except the beauty of mathematics to a large extent from that judgment.

You uttered interest in the foundations of mathematics. May I recommend to you some books by Spalt? Unfortunately they are all written in German.

My position is less compromising that Spalt's. He did not point out that Leibniz's infinite numbers contradict to the only reasonable notion of infinity. Mueckenheim wrote: Leibniz distinguished three degrees of infinity:

1) what is larger than every countable quantify (including the mathematical oo)

Having just read your essay, I feel a bit drunk from the zoo of modernisms you managed to review like an old expert. From your comment on my essay I got quite a different impression: You would like to be an independent thinker. You certainly were clever to abstain from consequent criticism in your essay, and everybody like you accepts "robust experimental confirmation" as compelling. If you were honest you should consider me wrong because my reasoning does not fit into what you learned.

Let me begin with mathematics. Leibniz called his "infinite numbers" infinite relative to something. Strictly speaking they are countable. Hence his method was correct, just based on a mutilated notion of infinity which was later mystified as infinitum creatum sive transfinitum. You used the notion countability correctly. I merely feel bewildered that you then added a word the I would prefer to avoid: cardinality. I see the distinction between countable and uncountable OK but nobody demonstrated any reason for aleph_2.

What about SR vs. an absolute frame of reference, my Fig. 5 does not yet explain what might be wrong around the experiment by Ives. On the other hand, I am vehemently stressing that spacetime is unreal if it is thought to include the not yet existing future. You did not object to my Fig. 1. Be consequent and honest even if it hurts. Your essay hurts me a bit because it avoids hurting others. You cannot eat the cake and have it. Barbour's shape dynamics may distinguish between past and future by means of asymmetry of a configuration space. The decisive and irreversible step is always the abstraction from reality to a model. Because the future is not yet real, I question the reality of spacetime. Moreover, I agree with van Flandern that Einstein's synchronization is an unnecessary de-synchronization, and the constancy of c re observer is logically inconsistent and was experimentally refuted by Shtyrkov.

I'm a bit bewildered by your response... I wasn't attempting to draw attention to my essay by commenting on yours; I didn't even reference it. However, since you raised the topic, it's difficult for me to understand how a submission like mine that questions and proposes to replace the fundamental building blocks of every aspect of modern physics could be viewed in the mainstream modernist way you seem to view it.

I implore you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The standard model and general relativity do mesh with most experimental results quite well, and any new theory must do at least as well. The fact that these two theories have serious problems (which is what my essay is about!) does not mean that it's useful to deny that they've done better than Newtonian physics in explaining things.

Though you may think me too accommodating of the "scientific establishment," please note that I didn't stereotype you or reject your ideas despite the fact that you obviously don't belong to that establishment. Neither do I belong to it, and I ask you not to stereotype me either.

Also, many of the mathematical ideas in my essay aren't establishment ideas because I developed them myself. The physical ideas (cause and effect!) are simple and well motivated; the math is whatever it has to be to get the job done. Ask the "scientific establishment" if they like my ideas... until now I haven't even been able to get anyone in the establishment to read them!

This is your thread, and I'll say no more about my own work, though I remind you that I didn't raise the topic. But you discourage friendly and honest remarks about your essay when you pull politics into it. Progress in science won't be made by merely being angry at ossified orthodoxy. It will be made by being better across the board. Take care,

In response to Stephen Sycamore I tried to explain how the uncommon views of mine behind each of my figures are logically connected, and I hope this chain of heretical but well-founded views can help to eventually resolve at least some of the questions that gave rise to the topic of the contest.

I see your approach much more straight forward. Of course, it would be desirable to immediately find a unification of theories that contradict to each other while each of them has been successful, approved, and confirmed by "robust evidence". I am ready to question this robustness.

I doubt that this unification can be achieved with mere modification of what you called "the fundamental building blocks of every aspect of modern physics". The topic of the contest asks for good reason: What BASIC assumption is wrong? Perhaps you are on a good way when focusing on mathematical foundations. That's why I suggested to you some food of thought. Please don't take amiss my honest opinion. I respect your work and wish you success.

Eckard

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 01:02 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I appreciate your magnanimous reply. In any case, as you point out, honesty is preferable to false praise! I respect your point of view, and assure you that there are no hard feelings. Take care,

You wrote: "I think that set-theoretic issues are very relevant to physics. I have run into the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice in my own efforts to understand physics."

I did not yet take issue in that direction because my own reasoning is most likely far away from what you learned and thought. Don't hurry, I am prepared but not keen for a controversy where virtually all silent participants would consider me stupid at least in the beginning. I nonetheless hope that my radicalism might help you out if you will run into trouble in future. You are still young enough for reaching decisive progress.

I'm finding that it's difficult to formulate a quick response to your probing essay. That probably means that your observations are deep enough and paradoxical enough that at least in some cases there may not be a very simple resolution with today's conception of math and physics.

As you know we share the perception that Lorentz invariance is not a complete description of how wave phenomena work, especially with regard to interactions with particles. There weren't quite enough details of Feist's experiment to fully understand the setup and results. I'm seek out his paper and comment further on that. In general though, light waves are transverse in nature while sound waves and many other mechanical waves vibrate in longitudinal directions in space. Outside of a vacuum EM waves do have a longitudinal component, but that component is not self-traveling. It dissipates quickly. So it's not clear yet how applicable the Feist experiment is to EM.

I fully agree on the point you make that negative frequencies cannot be discarded. In fact, in the engineering world, negative frequency values obtained from a Fourier transform are considered just as real and useful as positive frequencies. They merely signify that the wave component travels in the opposite spatial direction as the positive frequency component. Though an alternate conception allows the interpretation of the wave component traveling backwards in time, that interpretation collides with the interpretation of the positive frequency components. It seems forced to split the time parameter into two separate domains.

If you wish to discuss some of those points outside of this forum please feel free to contact me via the email address in a post on an offer to supply a copy of Sir J. J. Thomson's monograph in my forum. There's obviously a lot to discuss in the points made in your essay.

Yes, I am probing to some extent today's conception of math and physics as solicited with the topic of this contest. I don't have illusions. Most contestants prefer offering their speculations while they blindly trust in the basics and authorities I am questioning. Someone who did not understand Einstein, disrespects Cantor and Hilbert, and criticizes or ignores my pet deserves to be rated one.

It is perhaps easier to agree on selected claims of my essay than to acknowledge the intrinsic links between the five provocative figures in it.

Let me begin with a question you raised: Do we need negative frequency? Trained at TU Dresden, I was teaching foundations of electrical engineering at Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg for forty years, enough time for a careful scrutiny of complex calculus and its interpretation. Physicists from a freshman up to a Feynman do not devote much attention to the first steps and tend to interpret negative frequencies at which they arrived. They are even ready to split the time into clockwise and anticlockwise domains.

Presumably you did not yet understand me when you wrote:[negative frequencies are] "just as real and useful as positive frequencies". Go back to my Fig. 1. It illustrates an undeniable fact: Future data cannot be measured in advance. Only functions of positive elapsed time can be subject to spectral analysis.

I will explain consequences in the next post.

Eckard

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:39 GMT

Oh yes! Of course I'm going to rate your paper quite highly. And I can say that your use of English in the essay is excellent. If I needed to write something in German, I guarantee you that you would hear baby talk!

you said that you would take a look at my essay because the subject of reality is interesting to you.I am still hopeful that you might get the chance to take a look at it before the end of voting. As I value your opinion any feedback you feel able to provide would be much appreciated.

I wanted to begin the task of answering the set essay question (ie identify basic false assumptions in physics) by looking at the problems, both theoretical and philosophical, that need to be resolved as they are indicative of foundational false assumption/s at play. The list structure was necessary because of the character limit imposed by the competition rules. The basic false assumption has repercussions in many areas.

I did not make the essay about my "pet theory", following the advice we were given by the competition organisers, but I do see its use as necessary to give the most useful answer to the set essay question. Here's a link to a web site that explains more.RICP explanatory framework There is an older version of diagram 1. on that site. I have put a link to the high resolution file of the latest version, used in the essay, on my discussion thread.

I see it as a false assumption that objective reality is what we see, hear, feel, or measure. You thoroughly dealt with the matter, and I expect you to confirm this opinion of mine. What we see is only a subjective picture of objective reality. I will read your essay in order to check whether you arrived at the conclusion that Einstein's relativity and beauty are only in the eye of the observer/beholder. Presumably you would not win high scores with this correct and necessary insight.

Best,

Eckard

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT

Yes Eckard I do confirm that opinion of yours as stated in your previous post. By objective reality I understand you to be referring not to a reality that can be confirmed by another observer but a reality that exists independently of observation.

Yes Georgina, and Einstein synchronization depends on an observer. I hope we will nonetheless support each other.

Best,

Eckard

Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT

Eckard

Sorry I missed this, having been away on holiday.

“his obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity”

This concept does reflect physicality, it is just misconceived (ie it is not an illusion). As far...

“his obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity”

This concept does reflect physicality, it is just misconceived (ie it is not an illusion). As far as we can know (ie without entering the domain of belief) physical existence is: a) independently substantive b) involves alteration. The key point here is that the difference does not exist, but it reflects physicality, ie two or more different physically existent states, which when compared reveal differences. And only one such state can exist at a time, in any given sequence. In simple language: as at any point in time, the previous existent state (aka the past) must have ceased to exist, there is an existent state (aka the present), the state which will succeed this (aka the future) does not exist. There is only ever a present in a continuously changing sequence of presents. And there are many sequences occurring concurrently. Time is the duration unit in the measuring system, timing, which compares the number of changes in sequences and hence calibrates the relative rate at which any given change is occurring. It is not a “basic physical quality” of physical existence, but a feature of the revealed difference between them.

As you then say, a flawed presumption about ‘time’ (albeit a different one) can then become incorporated into mathematical constructions which purport to represent reality. The more general point here is that any representational device must correspond with reality as it is independently manifest, ie not be in accord with intrinsic metaphysical rules. That is a belief system. Except that when it is mathematics, and intrinsically valid, it can, superficially, appear objective. For example: infinity. Physical reality exists, therefore it cannot have the attribute of infinity, because it is finite. This is a classic example of the confusion which arises by not properly differentiating what can be known from what cannot be known. The concept of infinity actually reflects the fact that we are trapped in an existential loop, ie logically there may be an alternative. But we cannot know it, and so it does not come under the auspices of science, which is objective knowledge of reality as independently manifest, not beliefs about what may or may not be ‘really’ ‘out there’.

I admire your efforts to preach presentism to those who might share a slightly different view. I hope we can nonetheless respect each other. What about infinity, I agree with you on that one cannot find in reality anything that is evidently absolutely infinite. Assumed infinity of space and time are potential infinities when seen from human perspective.

You seem to defend a "just misconceived concept". Did you refer to Einstein's belief that the separation between past and future is just an illusion? Wouldn't this contradict your explanation "not an illusion".

Anyway, I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT

Eckard

If I remember correctly, because you have said this before, it is not presentism. Anyway, I do not care what it is, the point is that knowledge supposed to be objective must correlate with physical reality as it is independently manifest. And it is really quite easy to establish, generically, how that must be. Which brings me to this notion of 'points of view', there is only one, because physical existence only occurs in one form. And indeed, it is from the "human perspective". Precisely what other perspective is there?

I referred to Einstein only in the sense that it was a quote you used. My point, which is correct, was about past, present, future. The point about 'illusion' was that that would have no experienceable substantiation. But there is a physical reality reflected in these concepts of past, present, future, it is usually just not that which actually occurs.

"I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay"

Indeed, but if your base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions is incorrect, then that becomes a reundant exercise.

Human perspective means what you are calling manifest in opposition to ideal constructs including the divine perspective imagining a sight from out side. For instance, a point is not tangible. I also maintain, the very moment is strictly speaking not manifest.

You are correct: If my "base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions" were wrong then one could not expect correct results.

"Human perspective..." There is nothing else we can know, and even then we have to invoke hypothesis to overcome a variety of mecchanical problems in the sensory processes. We can just make assertions, based on no form of experienceability, but this is science not belief. We know of a physical reality only via the sensory systems. But within that existentially closed system, it exists independently of them.

"the very moment is strictly speaking not manifest". So how does physical existence occur then? Take anything as an example. Say St Paul's Cathedral. This is differentiated from everything else by certain features, and we also know they change. But this conceptualisation of 'it' is at a much higher level than what occurs. In terms of existence, what appears to constitute 'it' is constantly altering, indeed it would be impossible to delineate a clear boundary for 'it', etc. But it must have a physically existent state as at any given point in time, ie whatever configuration is actually occurring, in order to exist. This (aka present)is all there is, it is not the previous configuration (aka past)which must have ceased and been superceded, neither is it the subsequent configuration (aka future)which has yet to occur as a function of the present.

With human perspective I mean for instance that counting does never reach a number infinity. Archimedes argued: every number can be incremented by adding one. Scholastics taught what Aristotle formulated: Infinitum actu non datur. Nonetheless, EEs like me used to operate with infinity like a quantity. We know that this infinity belongs to an abstraction. Somewhat simple people cannot...

With human perspective I mean for instance that counting does never reach a number infinity. Archimedes argued: every number can be incremented by adding one. Scholastics taught what Aristotle formulated: Infinitum actu non datur. Nonetheless, EEs like me used to operate with infinity like a quantity. We know that this infinity belongs to an abstraction. Somewhat simple people cannot even imagine how it happens that sometimes temporarily insane people are saying they feel standing besides themselves. The sound human perspective is certainly the most natural but not at all the only possible one.

You are persistently speaking of a closed system in which we live. When I agree with Popper on that the real world is presumably an open system, I assume that there is an infinite plurality of possible influences on everything and therefore no chance to predict the future for sure.

May I understand your "closed system" as human's ultimate mental restriction to input via the sensory systems? Well, in this respect I agree at least with respect to one decisive aspect: Future data are definitely not available in advance via any sensory or measuring system.

I maintain: There is no present time between past and future. Expressions like today, presently, at this month, within this millennium, etc. denote time spans that are usually deliberately undecided with respect to the alternative past or future. Today was, today will be, or today was and will be something. What does existence mean? My dictionary tells me: "If something exists then it is present in the world as real, living or actual thing." Such a practical judgment cannot be based on expected future data. Hence, existence necessarily belongs to the near past. How near is, of course, as unclear as is the duration of considered as unchanged existence. What you calls "physical existent state at a given moment" is a fiction which is only reasonable together with the assumption anything flows steadily without sudden steps.

Why do you imagine that the past must cease immediately? Isn't the past a continuous summary of all what already happened up to the border to the future, something like a permanently incremented integral? Why do you speak of the future as the subsequent state? Don't you know that real numbers do not have a successor? Do you blindly follow Hilbert's unfounded finitism?

No. We, and indeed all sentient organisms, are part of reality. We are not separate from it, as if we were, somehow, ‘looking in’. So our very existence is the closed system. We cannot transcend that, and thereby know of anything extrinsic to it (assuming...

No. We, and indeed all sentient organisms, are part of reality. We are not separate from it, as if we were, somehow, ‘looking in’. So our very existence is the closed system. We cannot transcend that, and thereby know of anything extrinsic to it (assuming it exists anyway). But, although we are trapped in a sensory loop, within that, the sensory systems which enable that particular form of awareness in the first place, do not control/create what we are enabled to be aware of. That is, ‘our’ reality occurs independently of these processes. They receive physically existent phenomena.

It is the subsequent processing that is one of the problems. All the ‘mental’ stuff is just another ‘nuisance’, ie another factor which prevents the sensory systems from functioning perfectly by causing variation from the original. But all these factors are concerned with the mechanics of the processes, not metaphysical issues which cannot be resolved, by definition, and are irrelevant to an objective explanation of physical existence as it is detectable to us.

“There is no present time between past and future”. Now, given that there is a physical existence, and it alters (ie occurs in different states), how can that statement be true? There must be a point of existence (the notion of time is irrelevant). Otherwise there is no physical existence, let alone something which can then occur differently! It cannot be what has occurred, neither can it be what has yet to occur. It can only be what is occurring. You are quite right about the vagueness of the quantities of time you quote. What is being referred to here is the deconstruction of physical existence until a physically existent state is ‘revealed’, ie that which had physical existence and involved no form of change. This probably revolves around the condition of the properties of the elementary parts. But that is what, to answer your question, is what existence means. This is not to be confused with the substance of existence.

“Such a practical judgment cannot be based on…” You are confusing knowledge of reality, with reality. It must have existed so that we can gain knowledge of it.

“Why do you imagine that the past must cease immediately”. Because within any sequence of physical existence, two physically existent states cannot co-exist. The predecessor must cease for the successor to occur.

Without going into detail, and questioning the concepts, but just to convey the point. Two examples:

1 Take any type of elementary particle which is doing something. Now, in terms of substance, that is it, that is the ‘bottom-line’. In terms of reality, ie what is existent at any time, that is not it. Because the question arises as to what constitutes a physically existent state? Say the ‘doing something’ was ‘spinning’. Do we designate a physically existent state as half a spin, a whole spin, a million spins? No, all those options include change (ie must be more than one state). A physically existent state (ie a reality) in this circumstance will be one ‘degree’ of spin, ie where there is no further divisible state between two subsequent states. And a ‘degree’ would equate to the smallest particle in reality, ie the point at which no further spatial difference is possible. We have no chance of identifying this, I would suggest, but then the sensory systems evolved to give advantage in survival, not to perceive the very nature of our existence. But the whole point is, for physical existence to occur, and change, there must be a physically existent state of it, that must be definitive, there can only be one of them at a time in any given sequence, and it cannot involve change. This is the present, ie what at any given time is existent.

2 Say reality consisted of n differently shaped and coloured bricks, which have an innate property which caused them to move. Now, again the elementary substance of physical existence is the n bricks. The reality, ie what is existent, is a particular configuration of these as at any point in time, ie a particular physically existent state.

Finally, I must just stress that, generically, this is all very easy to say. What this is in terms of our reality is incredibly difficult. But these (and other) logical rules apply.

Paul

PS: I dumped the latest version of the first 22 paragraphs on my blog yesterday

Feeling a bit like someone who tries to teach atheism in Islamabad, I will nonetheless begin to try and patiently unravel what I consider your mistakes:

While I do still not yet entirely understand what you mean with the "closed system" and in particular with "we are trapped in a sensory loop", this might be not of central importance. We may perhaps agree on that we are using the notion reality roughly synonymous to objective existence in contrast to subjective imagination and expectation.

I think I understand your picture of subsequent states. I will show you some logical inconsistencies. You imagine that the past must cease immediately. What do you include within the past? Given the past must cease immediately and be replaced by the immediately following present. What would remain and could cease the next time?

In reality, there are traces to be found that memorize what happened while there are no traces belonging to the future. Isn't this an important aspect of reality/existence? Traces exist, often for very long time.

In principle, your imagined sequence of pebble-like states corresponds to discrete mathematics. We may attribute e.g. the upper half matrix to the past but the power to the future. This requires to arbitrarily choose a step width between subsequent states.

You wrote: "There must be a point of existence". A point has no extension. You mean a piece of the past immediately adjacent to the future that is so small that there is no noticeable change in it. If you maintain that there is a timespan present between past and future then tell me please its width and why it cannot be attributed to the past.

I apologize for having no interest in your blog.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT

Eckard

“You imagine that the past must cease immediately…”

Take St Paul’s Cathedral (again). Now, due to weathering, a molecule of stone detatches from the bell tower. I hope there is no concept other than that the state which involved attachment preceded the state which involved detachment, and that they did not occur at the same time?

Take St Paul’s Cathedral (again). Now, due to weathering, a molecule of stone detatches from the bell tower. I hope there is no concept other than that the state which involved attachment preceded the state which involved detachment, and that they did not occur at the same time?

But, while quite detailed, this is not a conceptualisation of what we refer to as St Paul’s Cathedral at its existential level. That is an incomprehensible configuration of elementary substances each in some particular state with respect to their own innate properties. The fact that we cannot comprehend it is irrelevant. As at any given point in time ‘St Paul’s Cathedral’ must be in one, and one only, definitive physically existent state, otherwise it cannot exist. And that involves no form of change, because change indicates more than one such state. The immediately previous state in the sequence of existence of ‘St Paul’s Cathedral’ must have ceased. Nothing can have more than one physically existent state at a time.

The problem here is our conceptualisation of physical existence. Understandably, we conceptualise it at a much higher level than what actually occurs. For the most part this does not matter in generating understanding, because we only want it at that level. But, we need to recognise, when it is appropriate to do so, that this conceptualisation is ontologically incorrect. Put simply, there is no such entity as St Paul’s Cathedral, or indeed all the other ‘its’ we invoke, when considering how physical existence actually occurs. There is a highly complex sequence (system), which only gives the appearance of St Paul’s Cathedral when conceptualised at a high level. That is, certain features at that level constitute it, but they are entirely superficial, in the context of physical existence.

Look at this another way. We do not touch it, so over time St Paul’s Cathedral becomes a pile of stone, wood, timber. It no longer ‘exists’. But how does that differ, physically, from any of the physically existent states which occurred, and we were content to designate as St Paul’s Cathedral? The answer is because what constitutes it no longer has the superficial physical features that we deemed to be St Paul’s Cathedral. Physically, logically, this pile of debris is just another configuration in the sequence! In other words, St Paul’s Cathedral (and any other such ‘it’) was only ever a concept.

“In reality, there are traces to be found that memorize….”

Forget memories, etc, etc. The distinction must be drawn between physical existence and knowledge of physical existence. Physical existence occurs independently of the mechanisms whereby we are enabled to be aware of it, albeit within the confine of existence. We are part of physical existence. We cannot ‘escape’ it. Which addresses your first concern about what constitutes the closed system I refer to. We only have knowledge.

“In principle, your imagined sequence…”

Yes, physical existence must ultimately have a discrete state, as at any given point in time, otherwise it could not exist, let alone change. The trick to identify that, and not confuse it with one that appears to occur when conceptualised from a higher level, or with elementary substance, in itself.

“then tell me please its width and why it cannot be attributed to the past”

Its ‘width’, ie duration, will be equivalent to the duration taken for the fastest change in reality to occur. Duration being the common denominator unit in the measuring system known as timing. In other words, at such a level of differentiation, no form of change would occur, so what was occurring would be a physically existent state, ie what existed as at that point in time. Obviously, not every form of change occurs at that speed, so one could have exactly the same physically existent state in some sequences occurring for more than one point in time. I just use the word point to emphasise non-divisibility/singularity. But what it constitutes must relate to physical reality, not just a concept, indeed, the same applies to the concept of spatial position and dimension. Any form of change indicates difference, but difference, as such, does not exist, states do. It is just that when compared difference can be identified.

Your finitist point of view is shown in the upper part of my Fig. 3. I prefer to assume time as a continuum as shown in the lower part of my Fig. 3. A continuum is thought to be divisible without limitation. Theory of fields has been based on the assumption of continuity which is often even then advantageous if we know that the continuous model is a simplification of something that is...

Your finitist point of view is shown in the upper part of my Fig. 3. I prefer to assume time as a continuum as shown in the lower part of my Fig. 3. A continuum is thought to be divisible without limitation. Theory of fields has been based on the assumption of continuity which is often even then advantageous if we know that the continuous model is a simplification of something that is discrete in reality.

The other way round, it also happens that something continuous is favorably approximated by means of discretization, see topic 833.

You assume: "physical existence must ultimately have a discrete state, as at any given point in time, otherwise it could not exist". Hm. Existence could not exist? You are trying to define existence by using it. This is called a logical circle.

Let's ask what properties does common sense associate with the notion reality/existence? I already mentioned opposite notions: imagination and expectation, anything at the level of abstract models.

If something is assumed to be real then it is usually considered immediately relevant in relation to something. This includes possible influences from past processes that we can perceive as well as influences into the future we can possibly exert. Accordingly, we tend to deliberately not exactly specify the temporal position of what we consider reality/existence. Your suggestion to restrict the duration of the present is therefore naive, and it is anyway not feasible. What measure has the very nil? Its measure is zero.

The relation between a particular cause and its effect is called arrow of time In reality it always denotes an irreversible process. It separates a particular past from the belonging future. Should we introduce a period of gradual transition between cause and effect just as to have a notion that would correspond to the present? I hope you will agree: No. I reiterate: The present and the present state are not exact and therefore not suited notions in physics.

Exploded and unexploded, Schoedinger's cat, Buridan's ass, ... There are many examples that ridicule the upper part of my Fig. 3. The lower part of Fig. 3 offers an alternative without singular point.

Time is the unit of a human devised measuring system, known as timing, which measures the relative speed at which change occurs by comparing numbers thereof in different sequences, ie how quickly present became past. Change is concerned with the difference between physically existent states (realities). Difference does not exist, neither can there be any change within any given...

Time is the unit of a human devised measuring system, known as timing, which measures the relative speed at which change occurs by comparing numbers thereof in different sequences, ie how quickly present became past. Change is concerned with the difference between physically existent states (realities). Difference does not exist, neither can there be any change within any given physically existent state.

There can be no continuity in physical existence, except in the sense of one existent state which never ever changes. Existence cannot occur unless it has a discrete existent state, and elementary substance. Which brings us to para 3 “You are trying to define existence by using it. This is called a logical circle”. No, it is called a closed system. And we are part of it. We can only know of it (which includes ourselves) via a mechanism which is existent within it. So, on that basis, we stop, in science, delving into beliefs about how existence might be constituted, and work on what is manifest (or could be properly be proven to be so). That is, what is potentially experienceable by any sentient organism, ie validated direct experience and what proven it could be so if the sensory systems were ‘perfect’.

“Let's ask what properties does common sense associate with the notion reality/existence?”

It is not a matter of assuming something to be real. It either existed or it did not, and it either existed in the form assumed, or it did not. Its occurrence is a function of at least one previously existent state which must have had a certain relationship to the current state in terms of sequence occurrence and spatial position, because physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance. There are no “influences into the future” because it does not exist and therefore cannot be influenced. When the subsequent present occurs it is just the current present in the sequence. It may be different from what could have otherwise occurred, but so is every present.

“and it is anyway not feasible”

Indeed, I always say that. But that is not the point. One has to accept how reality actually occurs (as known to us) and the implications thereof, and then move forward. Not invoke metaphysical assumptions because it is all too difficult, which do not correspond with reality, and then move forward on the basis of those.

The only form of existence (ie our physical reality) knowable to us is that which is detectable, which encompasses both validated direct experience, and that which is proven (on the basis of other direct experience) to have been potentially directly experienceable had the mechanism of the sensory process, which enables detection, been perfect. Whether other forms of existence occur is irrelevant, because they cannot be known.

That form of existence (ie our physical reality) has the following features:

1 It is comprised of elementary substances, of which there may be more than one type. These have a physical presence which is not further divisible.

2 These elementary substances have at least one innate property each which has a propensity to alter, of itself &/or under external influence, in its existent condition.

3 In any given sequence of physical existence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time.

4 A physically existent state is a definitive physical presence and does not involve any form of change.

5 No phenomenon can have physical influence but not have a form of physical existence.

6 The cause of any given existent state must be associated with other previously existent states (including the previous condition of the same elementary substance) and be only from amongst those states which have a specific relationship with that existent state, in terms of sequence and spatial position. As physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance.

We would all like something more ‘exotic’, but are trapped, existentially. However, when translated into actuality, these apparently simple features could involve something highly complex. Truth is weirder than fiction, so to speak.

The notion physical state is based on assumed oneness which goes back to abstraction. There are not just discrete properties like charge and spin but also in principle incommensurable to a chosen unit ones like position and velocity of a particle. You might find the issue illustrated in simulation results I presented in earlier contests. That's in what I agree with Roger Schlafly:...

The notion physical state is based on assumed oneness which goes back to abstraction. There are not just discrete properties like charge and spin but also in principle incommensurable to a chosen unit ones like position and velocity of a particle. You might find the issue illustrated in simulation results I presented in earlier contests. That's in what I agree with Roger Schlafly: Nature does not have exact elementary states in Hilbert space.

You wrote: "... existence (ie our physical reality) ... is that which is detectable, which encompasses both validated direct experience, and that which is proven (on the basis of other direct experience) to have been potentially directly experienceable had the mechanism of the sensory process, which enables detection, been perfect.

As I wrote in my essay, I see reality/existence an assumption. Your view only includes what already happened. If we assume something to be real then we may prove or disprove the assumption in future.

You added: ... existence has the following features:

"1 It is comprised of elementary substances, of which there may be more than one type. These have a physical presence which is not further divisible."

Are those sheep present that are unborn or just in the state of getting born?

"2 These elementary substances have at least one innate property each which has a propensity to alter, of itself &/or under external influence, in its existent condition.

3 In any given sequence of physical existence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time."

This and 4 implies to understand the existent state like a snapshot of infinitesimal small exposition time immediately before the border to the future.

"4 A physically existent state is a definitive physical presence and does not involve any form of change."

You are trying to obey logic on cost of the benefits of the deliberately imprecise use of the notion presence. It is quite normal to speak of a present process.

"5 No phenomenon can have physical influence but not have a form of physical existence."

Well, existence/reality is nothing but the integration of influences from the past and the possibility to influence future processes.

"6 The cause of any given existent state must be associated with other previously existent states (including the previous condition of the same elementary substance) and be only from amongst those states which have a specific relationship with that existent state, in terms of sequence and spatial position. As physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance."

You states are point-like. You need infinitely much of them. Discrete jumps are valuable abstract models.

I would just like to say thanks for responding. This is not personal to you, as you are conveying thoughts commonly held.

I did see your exchange with Jonathan, but am not sure what this concept of ‘oneness’ actually relates to.

“As I wrote in my essay, I see reality/existence an assumption. Your view only includes what already happened. If we assume something to be real then we may prove or disprove the assumption in future”.

Yes, and it is not tenable, given the nature of existence as known. As I said, we can only know of existence in one particular form, ie what is detectable or could be properly proven to be potentially so. Assuming nothing to be real, whilst appearing intellectually valid, is just as incorrect as assuming something which is not actually a feature of reality. It exists and we are part of it. No amount of thinking alters that, or can generate knowledge of it which is objective unless it is subservient to experienceability. Because what the sensory systems receive is the only independent representation of this form of existence which is available to us. In simple language: it can ‘only include what already happened’. With the caveat: …and what we can know, either directly or indirectly, of that. Remember, we are dealing with knowledge of reality, not reality. The issue is abstracting knowledge which correlates with what was received and what caused that.

Now, dependence on sensory detection does not imply that objective knowledge must be limited to validated direct experience: a ‘doubting Thomas’ type science. Because we know the sensory process does not work perfectly. But the crucial difference is between what, while not directly validatable, is properly inferred from other direct experience, and what is based on no substantiated experienceability (ie is belief). Though in practice, as knowledge becomes complex and its derivation further removed from direct experience, the more likely it is that these will become conflated.

“Are those sheep present that are unborn or just in the state of getting born?”

I do not understand this question. As at any given point time, that which we label ‘unborn sheep’ has a physically existent state. Our labelling and conceptualisation of it makes no difference whatsoever to the existential sequence involved.

“This and 4 implies to understand the existent state like a snapshot of infinitesimal small exposition time immediately before the border to the future”

Yes, because that is what it is, though I would not speak of future, but next state in the sequence.

“You are trying to obey logic on cost of the benefits of the deliberately imprecise use of the notion presence. It is quite normal to speak of a present process”

No, I am following what must be, given our knowledge of the existence we are trapped in. It may be ‘quite normal to speak of a present process’, but that is the problem. Because a process (system, sequence) involves more than one, but in existence there is only one at a time within a process. Assuming that the whole (or significant segments) of the process exist at the same time, which they cannot, then leads to all sorts of confusion.

“You states are point-like”

Yes, in that they are singular, definitive, devoid of change. For existence, as we can only know it, to occur and change, it must occur in physically existent states of this nature. My point about ‘jumping’ follows on from this and relates back to above, where it is believed that the process/sequence is existent at the same time. Which then enables incorrect causal relationships to be inferred, etc.

You wrote: "Our labelling and conceptualisation of it makes no difference whatsoever to the existential sequence involved." Look at my Fig. 3. It depends on conceptualization alias oneness whether or not there exists the singular point of concern. In real life, there is no natural criterion that marks the exact begin or end of a process.

What about my view that reality is an assumption, I should clarify that this does not mean I assume that something concrete may or may not be real. In this context "assumption of reality" is meant as general trust in what we are calling reality in contrast to imagination. You are quite right in that we can only measure or sense what already left traces and infer on this basis what might be real. My assumption of reality means the comprehensive existence of the world.

When we prepare something for observation in future then the assumed reality refers to something concrete. We do not question the general trust in reality.

There is still one expression you are repeatedly using which I do not understand: "existence occurs". When an event occurs, it happens. Do you equate event and existence?

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 08:34 GMT

Eckard

“You wrote: "Our labelling and conceptualisation…”

Yes, how can what we call something, or how we conceive it to be, have any impact upon whatever the physical existence was? Apart from the fact that one is the actual existence and the other is knowledge of it (whether subjective or objective is irrelevant), existence occurred before it was sensed and knowledge formed. ...

Yes, how can what we call something, or how we conceive it to be, have any impact upon whatever the physical existence was? Apart from the fact that one is the actual existence and the other is knowledge of it (whether subjective or objective is irrelevant), existence occurred before it was sensed and knowledge formed. We can only have knowledge of, and indeed that necessarily is limited to one particular form of existence (whether there are others we can never know, so that is irrelevant). And through a process of reverse engineering/elimination of individualism extricate knowledge from information (knowledge) which has a high degree of probability that it corresponds with what was detectable (either directly or indirectly) and what caused that.

However! If flawed labelling/conceptualisation forms the basis of some representational model/device which purports to correspond with reality in its generic form, then there will be problems. While that still does not mean that it is, literally, creating reality, this circumstance usually involves a reality which cannot be directly experienced, a complex model, and one which, in accordance with its own internal rules, is logical. So, in effect the model takes on a ‘life of its own’ depicting a reality which does not exist.

Re your figs: “The notion time has been derived from elapsed time (see Fig. 1)”

Here you have alighted on the key point. Time and timing is about rate of change. Change is about difference between realities. Difference does not exist. Singular, definitive, existent states do, which when compared reveal difference. So when ‘t=0’, that is what existed, just the present in the sequence, the previous present having ceased to exist, the subsequent present does not exist. Although I would not pretend to understand your figs, this sentence seems key: “The singular point in Fig. 3 is an unphysical artefact. Ideal notions like the point and the continuity of a line do not exactly fit to set-theoretically based mathematics”. Whether some concept fits a certain mathematical construction is irrelevant. The question is: does it correspond with the generic nature of reality? And then, so what is a representational model which does?

“It depends on conceptualization alias oneness whether or not there exists the singular point of concern”

No, it depends on the nature of the existence which we are trying to establish objective knowledge of. And we know, once we stop dabbling in the unknowable, two features of this existence: a) it exists independently of the processes which detects it, b) it alters. That is sequence, and such a sequence can only occur ‘one step at a time. So, without knowing what that might constitute, both generically and in actuality, we know there must only be one physically existent state at a time in the sequence of existence.

“What about my view that reality is an assumption?”

But it is not, is it? As far as we can know, we are part of ‘something’ and that has very definite characteristics. Our ‘take’ on existence might be complete rubbish. It might be completely different, involving all sorts of features which we are unaware of. But we are trapped in it, so scientifically, we must restrict ourselves to what is proven as detectable (either directly or indirectly).

“There is still one expression you are repeatedly using…”

Yes, occurs, exists, event are all interchangeable, otherwise the writing would just be unreadable. My term for what exists/occurs is physically existent state. That being a particular existent condition of the substance which constitutes reality. The underlying point being that something is happening independently of our sensing of it. If all sentient life turned away from the moon for a duration then the physical consequence of that would be that those photons emitted and reaching earth during that time, giving a representation of it for the sight sensory systems, would not be received by sentient organisms. They would be ‘received’ by water, earth, buildings, etc, but they do not possess a sensory system which can utilise them on receipt.

You wrote: "occurs, exists, event are all interchangeable" and you often used the expression "existence occurs". May I object that this is logically impossible?

I already blamed you for a logical circle which you denied with the inappropriate excuse we are living within a closed system.

Let me distinguish between reductionism/determinism as methods and as beliefs. While I see you a firm believer in this respect I consider me someone who is aware of some reasonable restrictions. I just assume reality and causality.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT

Eckard

“May I object that this is logically impossible?”

You can, but on what objective basis, assuming this is not a comment about my use of words just to make it readable? Which links to the next comment:

“I already blamed you for a logical circle which you denied with the inappropriate excuse we are living within a closed system”

You can, but on what objective basis, assuming this is not a comment about my use of words just to make it readable? Which links to the next comment:

“I already blamed you for a logical circle which you denied with the inappropriate excuse we are living within a closed system”

There is nothing “inappropriate” about this, neither is it a case of “living within”. We are part of existence, no different in that sense from Andromeda Galaxy or a stone. The only reason we, and any sentient organism, are aware of existence is because of the development of sensory systems. So we can only have knowledge of what must be assumed to be (but we can never know) a particular form of existence, ie our reality-that which the sensory systems enable us to detect. Which includes what we can properly infer (ie on the basis of other direct detection) we would have been able to detect had the sensory processes been perfect. Objective knowledge must be subservient, either directly or indirectly, to validated direct experience, because that is the only mechanism whereby we are enabled to know. Our reality is knowledge, and is a closed system. It is only within that confine that objectivity is possible, because what exists/occurs, does so independently of sensory detection.

Now, one of the issues is a tendency to assume that while we are fundamentally reliant on the sensory systems, and hypothesis must relate to it, we still can know existence. Which we cannot. That is, intrinsically logical hypothesis is deemed to enable us not only to overcome the immediate deficiencies in the sensory processes, but also provide knowledge of what is inherently beyond their capability. So, given this flawed presumption, as knowledge becomes more complex and its derivation further removed from direct experience, confusion arises between what, while not directly validated, is properly inferred from other direct experience, and what is based on no substantiated experienceability. The latter is belief, not science, though when it involves, for example, complex mathematical models, and an aspect of our reality that is not directly experienceable, then it can appear scientific (objective).

In simple terms, the reality we are investigating has a definite physical basis, ie has fundamental characteristics, because it is a function of the sensory systems. It is not an abstract concept. These then must be reflected in a scientific approach, not metaphysical concepts, which includes the apparently intellectually correct stance of assuming nothing, because there is something. What we are actually trying to establish is, within that given form, what occurred. Any type of method must start from the basis of the fundamental nature of our reality.

While I still hope for an anti-Hilbert alliance, you are unfortunately the only one who vehemently takes issue concerning my Fig. 3 and declares Dedekind's pebble-like notion of number the ultimately correct one.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT

Eckard

I am not sure whether I do or I do not, because as you know, I do not have the background. Which is why I have never commented on your fig 3, etc, per se. All I can talk about is, at the generic level, given the fundamental nature of our reality (ie what we are analysing) then 'the rules of the game' are.....

However! since my knee is really sore and I am grounded, I will attempt to take my mind off it by looking at these concepts. And if I feel I can say anything 'sensible' (which might actually be rubbish) I will do.

As expected, I now have a headache as well as a sore knee. I can specify the relevant fundamental nature of what is being investigated (ie our reality), and therefore what needs to be modelled with representational devices (eg mathematics). But having spent the day reading, I still certainly cannot make any judgement about the validity of specific constructs, nor indeed could I...

As expected, I now have a headache as well as a sore knee. I can specify the relevant fundamental nature of what is being investigated (ie our reality), and therefore what needs to be modelled with representational devices (eg mathematics). But having spent the day reading, I still certainly cannot make any judgement about the validity of specific constructs, nor indeed could I discern their underlying view as to how our reality is constituted.

The ontological characteristics of dimension, distance, and space

As previously stated, our reality is a sequence of physically existent states of the substances which comprise it. Only one such state can exist at a time, because for the successor to exist, the predecessor must cease. That is, at any given time within any given sequence, there is only ever one state (aka the present). Since the previous state (aka the past) has ceased to exist, and the next state in the sequence (aka the future) does not exist. Furthermore, that existent state must be physically definitive, and involve no change, otherwise existence, and alteration thereto, which is known to occur, could not do so.

In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, it must be recognised that we are conceptualising any given physical reality (ie physically existent state) as if it was being divided into a grid of spatial positions. The ‘mesh’ size of this grid must be equivalent to the smallest elementary physical substance in our reality, so that the spatial position of any physical substance is identifiable.

Only physically existent states exist. That is, concepts either reflect that physicality, or are an artefact of it. By definition, any given physically existent state must have definitive dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint), this being a function of its constituent physical substance. That, with reference to the conceptual grid, can be defined as spatial positions ‘occupied’.

It could be argued that a direct comparison between states is possible, and therefore there is no need for the concept of a grid. This is a fallacy, because logically the two circumstances are the same. The physically existent state used as a reference is just a surrogate grid. Indeed, in order to ensure compatibility with other comparisons, that state would have to be maintained as the reference (ie a de facto grid).

‘Mapping’ other states that were existent at the same given time, would reveal not only, obviously, both the spatial footprint of those states and their comparability, but also, distance. That is an artefact, a function of the physicality, and the particular selection of, the existent states involved. It is a difference, defined by comparison. There can be no distance between existent states which existed at different times. Their relative spatial position at their respective time of occurrence could be compared. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could include any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states involved, distance could involve spatial separation, or, if one state is within another, their spatial relationship, again in both cases with respect to specified dimensions.

Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint. It relates to the distance along any possible axis. So three is the absolute minimum number of spatial dimensions that is still ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation of any given physical reality. But is not what is physically existent. At that existential level, the number of possible dimensions that any given physical reality has is half the number of possible directions that the smallest substance in our reality could travel from any given spatial point.

Finally, space, in the sense of ‘nothing’, since otherwise it is distance. Again the start point is that only physically existent states are known to exist. Logically, there is the possibility that a not-physically existent state exists, ie at any given time there is a spatial position(s) that is(are) not occupied by physical substance. But this has not been proven yet. It is critical to differentiate this concept of ‘nothing’ from physical substance which just has different properties, because irrespective of how different the substances are, they are still substance.

The epistemological representation of dimension, distance, and space

As expected, I still cannot comment on any given mathematical construct in terms of its validity as a representational device of the above. Neither did I feel I made any real progress in discerning what form of reality Hilbert and Dedekind were presuming, ie following up on your comment that Hilbert ‘shared the view that the distinction past and future is merely an illusion’. Without then understanding the content I could at least have made some comment, on the assumption that the content of the mathematical construct reflected the form of reality presumed. That particular notion of our reality being incorrect, indeed, it is probably its most critical feature.

So, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the task is to develop models which properly correspond with the ontological characteristics of our reality (as above), which includes assessing the ones already being used. It has to be noted that in much of the material I read, there was a predominant concentration on intrinsic validity, ie whether the construct was internally valid. Obviously any given model cannot be internally inconsistent, but the search for ‘internal perfection’ is tantamount to assuming that our reality is an abstract concept and therefore what is required is a model that has no pre-conditions and ‘covers all the options’. But, our reality does have definite, and discernable, characteristics, which need to be properly reflected in any device purporting to represent it.

MP3 is clever and uses cosine transformation. Those who prefer complex Fourier transformation have to follow Heaviside on slippery ground: Analytic continuation means fabricating a future from nothing by assuming it equal to zero and splitting this fictitiously extended function into even and odd components. This is a clever way to benefit from elegant calculus. However, one has to know what one did.

If only the education didn't tempt to ignore such trifles like the difference between reality and model and between the real-valued and one-sided functions of time f(t) and their complex-valued two.sided (apparently symmetrical) function of frequency F(omega). The positive and negative frequencies of F(omega) must not be interpreted separately.

Now you will hopefully be in position to understand my Fig. 2 as serious reproach of current nonsense to be found in many textbooks.

Sorry for that,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT

Dear Steven,

My Fig. 3 may look like overly sophisticated. It is however at the heart of a dispute I had with Hendrik van Hees who blamed me for damaging the reputation of my University. While he soon apologized himself for that, it took me a lot of energy to force him to admit that he was wrong.

My claim was and is that Fourier transformation of the real-valued uni-lateral f(t) in IR+ is just redundant as compared to the simpler cosine transform in IR.

HvH was reluctant to admit that IR+ is as mathematically correct as is IR. In my essay 833 I pointed to some related worries about zero and offered a plausible solution to the question how to deal with zero in case of splitting IR into IR+ and IR-. This solution is illustrated in the lower part of Fig. 3.

Best,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT

Dear Steven,

My Fig. 4 questions the appropriateness of ZFC in physics while it was adopted from Fraenkel himself 1923. At that time Fraenkel followed G. Cantor who denied the 4th logically possible relation between two objects. Of course, something that is incomparable cannot be numerically expressed. The late Fraenkel admitted that Cantor's set theory is merely more colorful than a less bizarre alternative.

Eckard

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT

Dear Eckard,

Perhaps I did miss a nuance in your assessment of negative frequencies. It wasn't quite clear what you were claiming. Your posts here do help. I pointed out that, of course, a negative frequency does not have to be associated with backwards progressing time which is apparently your main concern.

And yes, I agree that the cosine transform is just as valid to perform as the Fourier transform. The only drawback is that the result you get doesn't generate the phase relationships between the various frequency components. Which is perfectly adequate in many applications.

So much more than that I don't have the time to devote on this subject. Sometimes it doesn't pay to over-complicate a simple problem. I hope you don't feel that I made a mistake in rating your essay.

My main concern is correct reasoning including correct mathematics. Fourier transformation (FT) vs. cosine transformation (CT) is indeed not a complicated problem. Nonetheless, most experts perhaps including you consider CT just a special case of FT with limited application. Well, CT is absolutely equivalent to FT (except for the arbitrarily chosen in IR point of reference) only with the assumption that reality is real-valued and one-sided. Then FT is twice redundant, i.e., IR contains four identical copies of reality.

I have to fear that virtually nobody here will rate my essay correctly and more importantly accept the consequences concerning symmetry issues in physics.

I will return to the wave issue later.

Best,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT

Dear Steven,

You wrote: "As you know we share the perception that Lorentz invariance is not a complete description of how wave phenomena work, especially with regard to interactions with particles. There weren't quite enough details of Feist's experiment to fully understand the setup and results. I'm seek out his paper and comment further on that. In general though, light waves are transverse in nature while sound waves and many other mechanical waves vibrate in longitudinal directions in space. Outside of a vacuum EM waves do have a longitudinal component, but that component is not self-traveling. It dissipates quickly. So it's not clear yet how applicable the Feist experiment is to EM."

Before I got retired I was with at an institute for electronics, signal processing and communication technology. Therefore I got a bit familiar with TEM waves in cavities as well as with acoustics waves and a comparison between them. You are quite right, TEM and acoustic waves are different to some extent. Nonetheless I realized that Feist's result cannot be explained if one adopts the reasoning by Lorentz to acoustics. I wrote that neither Feist nor Bruhn explained Feist's measurement. I should correct me and say convincingly explained. Meanwhile Feist sent me an arXiv paper (24 pages in German) in which he theoretically justified his measurement. I cannot recommend reading it because Feist dealt with many marginalia including Ritz, Pashky, and Marinov transformation. His own explanation is similar to mine but about as geometrical and worrying as Marmet's attack on MMX.

Norbert Feist wrote (my translation): As I was informed by Dr. Karl Mocnik/Graz in December 2000, he had already 10 years ago realized that Michelson experiments with sound have the same outcome as the optical ones.

Just some details: Width of the transducer 2 cm, width of the reflector much larger.

Best,

Eckard

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 12:49 GMT

Hello Eckard,

Would it be possible for you to write up something additional to clarify the issues you bring up? I believe you are entitled to submit 2 files inside this forum.

I'm thinking it would help very much and be more convincing if you laid out a detailed list of assumptions, dependencies and inferences in a step-by-step manner similar to the procedure followed for a math proof.

Rather than respond to Peter's response I'd rather, first of all, formulate a direct response to your notes. I believe you are well justified in questioning whether EM fluctuations always proceed at c from an emitting body. Since we have no means to directly measure that (without involving a test particle) that velocity must be inferred. From a theoretical standpoint, quantum theory does not furnish the tools to model the emission process as far as I know. One reason for that is that very much of quantum theory is built from relativistic or non-relativistic kinematics by-passing dynamical formulations leaving only before-emission and after-emission states.

It would seem natural that the emission process is quite similar to the absorption process except that the sequence of events and propagation of waves is reversed. In both cases the process involves a photon unless the wave fluctuations are non-photonic, that is, involve only an exchange of displacement current. (I'll assume we want to avoid a description involving virtual photons). Such non-photonic experiments could conceivably be carried out by charging moving capacitors. So the resolution of your concern would probably require the consideration of a number of different experiments plus a consistent and rigorous formulation of emission theory. I'd have to see Professor Omar's analysis before commenting on that.

It may also be the case that a proper EM model that demonstrates the Sagnac effect can illuminate the situation. As I've said a number of times, I believe a rigorous mathematical model for rotating objects must be done using SU(2) algebra. Doing so should relate the absolute qualities of rotation to the relative qualities of linear wave propagation, providing an anchor in time and space for the relative velocities.

So yes, any assumption of emission at c is preliminary and requires more investigation.

Thank you for your cautious response. You might find a more clear representation of Jackson's basic idea in topic 1448 by Kingsley-Nixon where Fig. 1 clearly illustrates what I consider obviously fallacious at least in case of acoustic waves.

1448 is also a good guide to what I consider Jackson's maneuvers. For instance, Jackson, who managed so far only to publish in viXra offered to Ernst Fischer:

"I believe our work is very compatible and could be valuably co-joined to be far greater than the sum of the parts (but you'd have to collect the Nobel). I hope you may agree."

I will either find at least one of Omar's papers somewhere in my computer or ask himself for another copy.

I look forward to reading Professor Omar's material. With regard to Peter's ideas, I hope you will reconsider the general vision of what he is working towards. I too find it difficult sometimes to parse out a more simplified glimpse of what he is attempting to portray. On the other hand, Peter is quite familiar with many astronomical observations which can be perplexing to account for in simple theoretical terms if one only considers macroscopic EM physics.

I hope you will reconsider Peter's essay and approach. It seems far better to me to work cooperatively than to dismiss prematurely. From what I can see, Peter is more than willing to discuss any relevant technical issue and address possible criticisms. As he maintains, one must dig a bit deeper into understanding what he really means to show rather than what is immediately apparent to a person who is not already familiar with the ideas.

You are correct in that Peter Jackson collected a lot of astronomical details. Perhaps he looked for anything that confirmed his re-emission idea, originally including faster than c propagation. His 2012 essay and the essay topic 1448 by R K Nixey (related to Judy N?), who was named as co-author of Peter Jackson's vixra paper "Inertial Frame Error ...", did no longer maintain what Peter Jackson had uttered in the last contest: actually superluminal motion. Jackson adapted to what is common opinion: Faster than c propagation is only apparent.

Meanwhile, Jackson's idea attracted attention of those who are not ready to put SR and MMX in question but prefer to imagine instead space as infinitely many spaces in relative motion.

What about "perplexing astronomic observations" I consider explanations for instance of aberration by Paul Marmet pretty understandable.

Regards,

Eckard

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 13:13 GMT

Hello Eckard,

Google Scholar finds many papers by A. S. Omar, including the one you mention and another IEEE paper by the same authors published that same year.

"Steady-state analysis of signal transmission in evanescent channels" IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation Date of Publication: May 2003

From the abstract, the first paper appears to show the claims you have attributed to Professor Omar. However, it might not be a general conclusion as the paper seems to be applicable only to signals passing through a waveguide.

The second paper sounds especially interesting as the abstract claims "It is also shown that under steady-state conditions, conventionally defined transmission velocities are not necessarily restricted to be less than or equal to c (speed of light in free space) as long as they are not related to direct measurements."

Does that result substantiate what many of us are saying about the non-measurability of apparent superluminal wave propagation? I'm not an IEEE member but I think purchasing at least one of the papers would be in order. Thanks for the reference. I'll return after studying the paper(s).

Thank you Steve for your support. Eckard; You claim I "uttered in the last contest: actually superluminal motion." But you disregard what I actually write and said, and continue to do so!

My first axiom in bold type, last year, was; "EM wave speed is controlled by n within a dielectric medium" i.e. c/n with c explained as 'local' c. I protest that you have not understood, and explain, but you just dismiss my explanations and assume you know better a priori.

The secret to understanding lies in the axiom that there are TWO valid cases for all 'speeds', as clarified in my essay. This is 'real' propagation speed, and 'apparent' speed, which is 'observer speed' (or 'frame') dependant.

I'll try yet another analogy, and ask you questions;

You are an observer at rest on a coach travelling at 100kph.

In the opposite direction a coach B approaches also doing 100kph.

A man in coach B is running towards the front at him maximum speed 15kph

You film the coach passing, play it back, and find the man running at 215kph!

Question. Is the man really running at 15kph, 115kph, or 215kph?

Hopefully considering this question will clarify the reality that there is more than one answer subject to observers state of motion and local background.

Your mistake is obvious: You are considering moving masses, not propagating waves. This is understandable since your re-emission idea is also based on the assumption of emitted particles (photons). Any wave, no matter whether acoustic or electromagnetic does not convey matter but energy. The speed of propagation for this wave is a constant that depends on the medium: c. The front of the wave does not propagate faster re medium than with c. There are phase velocity and group velocity. As Steven Sycamore explained, their product equals c^2. This means, one of the two is larger than c.

On must not add the speed of two waves that are moving towards each other. Likewise it is incorrect to superimpose the velocities of speeds in the same medium.

Forget bullets, observers, and more that just one frame, the frame of the medium when considering waves.

Eckard

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 09:26 GMT

Eckard

I am considering waves. But waves propagating in any medium A, which is a 'moving mass' with respect to medium B and also then considering waves propagating in medium B. Both these waves are propagating at c wrt the medium they are in.

For you as an observer to consider each locally (i.e. propagating at c), you must change frames (accelerate) from one state of motion to...

I am considering waves. But waves propagating in any medium A, which is a 'moving mass' with respect to medium B and also then considering waves propagating in medium B. Both these waves are propagating at c wrt the medium they are in.

For you as an observer to consider each locally (i.e. propagating at c), you must change frames (accelerate) from one state of motion to another.

The waves I'm considering are indeed 'conveying energy', and I make no assumption of emitted 'particles' of matter. Photons as wave packets are not excluded, but only the wave behaviour is considered. The misunderstanding lies a level above this in conception of relative kinetics. This is why I analogised the buses. If you consider a light pulse emitted from the rear through bus B, with a diffuse gas to trace its progress (as a 'cloud chamber') it's REAL speed is dt=c through bus B, so c wrt the bus.

It is the same for your rest frame bus A. So when you see the evidence of the pulse in bus B, you are seeing only an 'apparent' speed (c+v) not a real propagation speed. You must 'jump buses' if you wish to find the real speed; c.

Why do you have a problem with this simple logic? Nothing exceeds c. Not the original pulse in bus B (unless you are being anthropocentric) and not the light scattered from the gas particles evidencing the passing of the pulse.

Your last line is illogical unless there is just one medium at rest in the entire universe. Yes of course we are considering "the frame of the medium when considering waves" but, as all mediums are in relative motion, we must consider the frame of each medium in turn. We are not 'superimposing velocities in the same medium'.

Once that new overarching broadening of conception is achieved the rest can be fitted logically into place. While it seems some, like Judith and Steven, can see that next step, I can see that to others it may be like Indiana Jones's 'leap of faith' (in the 'Temple of Doom') and look impossible until tested. In this case there is no 'fall', so you should not fear to test it.

How would people hear each other talk within two passing Concorde jets if there is only one universal frame?

If you return to the buses, and the air within as a medium in which you are at rest, then the invisible and unfamiliar but simple solution should reveal itself.

You referred to my last line: "Forget bullets, observers, and more that just one frame, the frame of the medium when considering waves." You replied: "Your last line is illogical unless there is just one medium at rest in the entire universe."

The possibility that there is only one space of the universe is indeed the most simple one, and I see my Fig. 5 illustrating that it was wrongly excluded because of the null-result of the MMX.

Moreover, you overlooked the possibility that my last line referred to acoustic waves. "And more" includes your buses.

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for finding the references. Maybe what I recall from my memory was presented in one of the weekly seminars by Prof. Omar. It was a bit like hobby outside his research on waveguides, antennas, ground penetrating radar, etc.

At that time, we felt challenged by Nimtz who claimed having measured faster than light propagation of signals by evanescent modes. I wondered how many people were interested to hear that Einstein was presumably wrong although Nimtz just declared he could not explain his results. I personally contempt them for two reasons:

- They did not understand that the limitation to c is not necessarily related to Einstein but simply to waves. Such people tend to see emission theory the only alternative to SR.

- Fictitious components may of course propagate faster. So Nimtz cheated himself when he measured evanescent modes. The actual front velocity is limited to c.

It appears that the community has appreciated your work after all. Assuming no further chaotic oscillation in the ratings; I congratulate you as a finalist.

You deserve to have your work seen and reviewed by the experts. Knowing you; I am sure their feedback - even stern criticism - would be worth as much as appreciation from the average reader. But alas; that will be left unknown. May the judges treat you well, in the way that they can.

Steve Sycamore suggested to me something like an attempt to summarize the essence of my essay. Asking myself for the key assumption to start with I tend to focus on the notion of reality in contrast to e.g. Einstein's notion of it. I did not yet reply to your hint on the finding that a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings. And yes, oneness is an issue.

All the Best,

Eckard

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT

Hello Eckard,

Regarding the statement that "a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings," and the issue of oneness; I think this is a key point, often missed, that bears close inspection. If the universe had a beginning, I think it likely that it originated from an undifferentiated state, and that oneness is an essential quality that helps to define existence. We can speak about there being no topology before the first distinction, recognizing that topology is defined by the topological distinction between the two sides of any boundary or surface. In some sense; such distinctions belie the notion that oneness is by nature encompassing, existing on both sides, as well as in the boundary.

Oneness can be referred to as identity, sameness, self-agreement, self similarity, and so on. The Chinese philosophers talk about something called Wu-Ji, the state beyond and before distinctions that create duality or comparisons. Wu-Ji is said to exist before Tai-Ji - which is sometimes translated as 'grand ultimate' - because oneness is assumed to be more fundamental than greatness. The Chinese word for Physics is similar - Wu-Li.

I'm working on a universal protocol for measurement or determination, and step one is to assume oneness. From the individual perspective, who, where, and what I am is assumed to be identical with myself, and not different from anything else. So when a child does not initially distinguish between him or herself and the surroundings, maybe that little baby knows something we tend to forget.

To me, the assumption of oneness is an important step of abstraction. It has been indispensable for mathematics at least since Euclid.

I would never guess that "little baby knows something we tend to forget". They are blind when they make steps we are not aware of.

I humbly admit being an engineer who decided to abstain from speculations about the beginning of the universe. I see still enough chances even for a nobody like me to contribute improvement in the accessible to logics and experiments very foundations of mathematics and physics.

I see LC a tragic figure with rather imperfect education and rude manners. Otherwise he did not write "Einstein's anus mirabilis" and did not write: "some other papers ... such as Tamari, Blumschein, Klingman, Leshan, Merryman which either have factually wrong physics, advance silly propositions and in some cases clearly show a lack of basic understanding of physics." He tends to strongly dislike my criticism, and the contest provides a good opportunity for him to take issue and show at least a weakness in my essay. Obviously he did not find anything in it he could seriously object to. Instead he decided to insult me and others in public without uttering a single factual argument and even without signaling his insult to us. Should I urge him to get factual? You know, I appreciate most if someone reveals a mistake of mine. Frankly speaking, I do not expect a single valuable criticism from LC. So let's ignore him. Nonetheless thank you for the information.

1. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the light source.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

Wave theory:

1. The speed of light relative to the observer DOES NOT VARY with the speed of the light source.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

As you can see, the emission theory and the wave theory share Proposition 2 which contradicts special relativity. I must admit however that the wave theory defends Proposition 2 much better than the emission theory so in my essay I was forced to use the wave theory, not the emission theory:

Your post is possibly understandable within the context of a discussion on your essay in your thread.

I asked you there to defend yourself.

Eckard

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 09:51 GMT

Eckard

I responded to your post on my blog with more links (as you felt one was inadequate) and don't have Google. (I refer to your post about my wishful thinking and lack of knowledge).

You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."

The exact reverse is true. You had understood that a few weeks ago but seem now to have forgotten again. I can find no cause for this except that again you didn't follow my advice for gaining better comprehension. I've suggested we all need to dig deeper to find and remove those assumptions which we otherwise revert back to as a 'default mode' the moment we loose concentration.

In fact this is as true for sound, your familiar subject, as it is for light. The signal from the ear to the brain has a 'wavelength', which varies subject to the motion of the body. I suggest a calculation will show this also differs from the wavelength in the 'outside' medium. It would take a completely fresh view of the familiar to see the important consequences of this; The frequency is inversely proportional to lambda, as speed is controlled by the local medium. It is precisely the same for em waves.

I think my full reply on my string should straighten this out. You say you defer to Steve Sycamore's expert view. I also respect Steve's view and believe he'll unequivocally confirm the above. I'll flag this conversation up for Steve to comment.

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;

"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is confusingly 'CSL', so I'll use 'instantaneous', for 'CIL'.

Envisage a space, say a 10 metre cube, with say five 0.5 metre 'particles' in it, all made up of gluons, protons, electron shells etc. and all moving with respect to (wrt) each other. We'll slow down some light waves passing through the space, to a constant 5kph wrt the cube, which we'll call 'c', so we can see what's going on.

As a part of each plane wavefront interacts with each particle the speed of propagation is instantly changed, or 'localised', to c', which is c wrt the particle NOT the cube. Most of the wave carries on at c, and another 0.5m bit may interact with a different particle, and then be localised to c", which is yet another c, wrt THAT particle. After a very short delay (PMD) each particle re-emits the charge (wave) at c wrt itself, that is; c' or c". So each of those speeds is different when viewed from the cube (background) frame, but is always c from the frame of each particle. That is 'local c' in the 'local frame' of each particle.

Now if all the particles are at rest wrt the cube, but the PMD delay gives refractive index n = in excess of 1, then all the re-emissions will have the same speed and axis c'. The process is equivalent to 'extinction' of the old wavefront and speed c. The effect of two axis during extinction is a form of birefringence, precisely as first found by Raman Chandraseckara pre his 1930 Nobel. (He also confirmed the new emission speed c' is wrt the particle not any bound electron orbital speed). In this case the word 'local' then refers to the cube, which may of course be in motion wrt it's own background.

Maxwell's 'domains' are only valid for each of those local frames. As soon as a 'transformation' (LT or GT) between frame is required they are invalid.

The big difference here is that we can now assign a frame' the mutually exclusive 'space' envisioned conceptually by Einstein (1952) to finally complete his quest for a 'Local Reality' derived from a quantum mechanism. That mechanism is simply Raman scattering, co-incidentally found the year of his Leiden speech 1921.

Does that help clarify the meaning assigned to 'local frame? The word 'single' may be almost irrelevant, but importantly reminds us that there are others, indeed "infinitely many spaces in motion relatively"; (AE 1952)"

You wrote in your essay: “Those who signed for clarification concerning the twin paradox [5] are blamed for not understanding the twin paradox that the twin paradox is not a paradox but merely counterintuitive. While the signers dispute this, they are unable to agree on an alternative. The majority within this minority prefers only to distrust Einstein’s relativity...

You wrote in your essay: “Those who signed for clarification concerning the twin paradox [5] are blamed for not understanding the twin paradox that the twin paradox is not a paradox but merely counterintuitive. While the signers dispute this, they are unable to agree on an alternative. The majority within this minority prefers only to distrust Einstein’s relativity [6]”.

Please consider whether my essay (attached) provides an alternative.

I would like to let you know, I was a signatory. But I certainly do not belong to the ‘majority within the minority’ which you correctly comment about. I belonged to a minority within the minority. Perhaps I am in the minority of one, who considered that all the empirical equations that give expression to relativistic phenomena are correct, but Einstein’s space-time interpretation is incorrect. (Just the same way McEachern says about equations of QM being correct while the slapped on interpretations being incorrect).

What is required is to discern the physical basis of relativistic phenomena, as arising from state changes of energy.

And this connects up with another statement from your essay: “Conservation of energy does not imply closed systems”..

Yes you are quite right. There is no interaction in the Universe that occurs without exchanges of energy with the field, and this necessarily means that all systems are open.

Conservation of energy needs to be looked at from a broader perspective on the lines advocated by Weyl: : “The total energy as well as total momentum remains unchanged: they merely stream from one part of the field to another, and become transformed from field energy and field momentum into kinetic energy and kinetic momentum of matter and vice-versa” ( Space-Time-Matter, p. 168).

I attach my essay. You would find therein that I have shown the physical basis of ‘time dilation’. I have explained how a GPS clock slows down due to orbital motion and how the decay time of a muon gets delayed when in motion and I have matched results to a very high degree of accuracy.

My objection to SRT version of the ‘twin paradox’ is that it considers ‘time dilation’ to occur because of some KINEMATIC change in the space-time structure. This interpretation is wrong. Time does not change, but internal processes slow down with respect to time for DYNAMIC reasons.

I have shown in my essay how, when a body is set in motion, it loses the fraction of energy Mc2(1 – 1/gamma) to the field. (A particle or body is also not a closed system). The energy that remains in the body is Mc2/gamma. The internal processes slow down in direct proportion.

The traveling twin’s metabolism too will be slowed down in the same manner. WE cannot rule out the probability that the traveling twin’s body cells and organs may not degenerate due to slowed down metabolism as much as that of the earth bound twin’s. (To this extent we may consider that one has ‘aged’ less than the other, just like if we consider two fifty year old men, one substance abuser and the other having a healthy life style, the latter would be considered to have ‘aged’ less healthwise).

But just like the clock on the wall of the spaceship is a CLOCK by virtue of the internal processes within it, the twin’s body clock is also a CLOCK by virtue of its metabolic activity. If this clock with the reduced metabolic rate is to be considered the measure for the age, then we can consider the case of two people who are twins, neither of whom have ever left the earth too. One has hypothyroidism and the other not. The question is because the twin with hypothyroidism has a lower metabolic rate does he become younger than the other?

I need some time for reading and commenting on your essay. Einstein's relativity is just punctually crossing my line of reasoning. If you are interested in a broader perspective you might read the attached file. I am always happy if someone tells me what he does not understand.

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition – namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts...

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition – namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated”.

Thus the first six pages of my essay is to show how physics arrived at the point where Newtonian mechanics became incapable of explaining relativistic phenomena, which manifest in cases of fast moving objects.

It shows that Einstein understood that Newtonian foundation was fictitious. Einstein knew that the “Right Way” was to formulate a theory on the same lines as TD, but instead of finding a theory based on first principles (as in TD), he added more fictions. And I show why he had to stick to this fictitious path. It is because, Einstein discarded the dynamic substratum of Galileo’s relativity and took only the superficial kinematic caricature of it. The dynamic substratum of Galileo’s relativity is that there is a CAUSE why the relative motion of two objects in a given location remains the same, independent of the velocity of the local frame. The cause is that both the objects share a motion in common with the local frame. “The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it” ( Dialogos, p. 187).

Poincare severely attacked this substratum (see St Louis Address), and insisted that there is no common motion so that the idea of a preferred frame is completely eliminated. It is on this castrated principle of relativity that Einstein adopted. This is why he could not discern the dynamic link between the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation. (Perhaps you may recall the discussion I had with George Ellis on this subject, where you made some comment in regard to my ‘persistence’).

In the last four pages of my essay I prove my point by briefly showing the solution. By developing the algorithm that underlies motion of a particle. Still these may not convey to you how relativistic phenomena appear in fast motions.

I would therefore copy an extract of my post to Israel Perez a few days back.

(Beginning of Extract):

In the final analysis, the whole crisis in physics has the following four factors combining together as the root cause – the primordial foundational errors of physics. 1) Not considering that all phenomena arise out of state changes of energy in an open system, with exchange of energy between the system and the field. 2) Not considering that Nature’s processes are non-linear and NOT DEVELOPING PHYSICS RIGHT FROM THE START on the basis of a corresponding NON-LINEAR MATHEMATICAL SCHEME. 3) Not considering that motion of a particle occurs by the interaction of TWO quantities of energy; particle energy Mc2 and the energy of motion pc. The POINT MASS CONCEPT which is common to SRT and QM as well prevents the discernment of non-linear mathematical configuration underlying the interaction of the above two quantities of energy. 4) Not considering that: A particle moving relative to a given location (in motion) not only has a motion in common with the location but with the whole hierarchy of motions of the location. (E.g. A particle set in motion on a moving ship has motions in common with the ship, earth’s surface, earth’s orbiting centre)

As I see it, physics had developed from the time of Newton till early 1900’s on a linear basis for slow moving bodies (without taking the above four factors into account). The development of physics up to that point was possible and successful because, for slow motions, the effects of non-linearity are negligibly small (imperceptible) over short intervals of time (they would manifest only if cumulative data are considered over a long period as in the case of perihelion motion of Mercury). In sharp contrast, effects of non-linearity develop exponentially at very high velocities, (and the very same phenomena that are imperceptible at slow motions become very much perceptible at fast motion). Thus when physics came at the stage of conducting experiments with fast moving particles, the combined effect of the above four factors hit the fan, and physics was thrown into a crisis.

The most difficult factor (out of the above four) to make people understand is about the effect of common motion of a particle with the hierarchy of backgrounds. This was a basic premise of Galileo and Newton “A body that is moved from a place also partakes in the motion of the place” (Principia p. 9). Because the non-linear effects are imperceptible at low velocities, the premise of “common motion of a particle with its places”, became superfluous to be taken into consideration in practice. So there had been a de facto application of the Occam’s razor to this principle. Therefore, physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all ‘reference frames’ are equivalent.

When physics arrived at the stage of experimenting with fast motion, the non-linear effects took exponential proportions, the phenomena associated with non-linearity were no more imperceptible.

The phenomenon associated with Galileo’s premise of the motion of a particle (relative to earth) also having a motion in common with earth’s orbiting centre, had even much deeper implications. It took the centre stage. The fact that earth’s orbiting centre is also the centre of earth’s gravitational field loomed large, and manifested in the results of these experiments of fast moving particles. But since Galileo’s premise of common motion with the earth has slipped the minds of the physicists, it never occurred to them to look for an answer on its basis.

And at the same time over two centuries of physics, minds of physicists had got trained to ignore the effect of earth’s gravitational field, and to consider that space as empty and inert. With this mindset, they could never think of even a more complicated structure than the space being the earth’s orbiting gravitational field. That is, that the space (of the lab frame) consists of a gravitational field whose centre is orbiting about the centre of the sun’s gravitational field. (That space needs to be considered as consisting of two interpenetrating gravitational fields in the least).

The particle (of energy Mc2) while at rest on earth already is orbiting with the earth in the sun’s gravitational field. This is common knowledge, so common that it was never considered to have any further implications.

The implication is that, the energy of motion pc now added to the particle (Mc2) to set it in motion too has to gravitate about both these fields. In order to counter-act the gravitation of the sun, the energy pc has to develop a separate subsidiary component of energy (by fission) which will enable it to move at the orbital velocity determined by the gravitational potential of the sun’s field. By this means it also develops a centrifugal force, which counteracts sun’s attraction (and thereby tidal effects get eliminated). Therefore the velocity that the subsidiary component of energy pc has to develop, to move in sun’s gravitational field, (while also moving the particle in earth’s gravitational field), is equal to earth’s orbital velocity u = 30 k/s.

This is why in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS a term involving earth’s orbital motion became manifest. And this is why in the 1904 paper in which Lorentz was working towards developing the EMPIRICAL EQUATION, (which we now call as the ‘Lorentz transformation’) by iteration of data of experiments of fast moving particles, he wrote in the opening paragraph itself: “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)

In my theory there are no reference frames (like the theory Israel Perez claims that he tried to develop similar to TD). So Israel’s following statement does not apply to my position:

Israel wrote: “I now understand why you introduce the sun frame. Lorentz considered it because at that time physicist assumed that the sun could be at rest relative to the aether (PSR). But today this argument no longer applies because the sun it is not at rest relative to the PSR”.

I am by no means a follower of Lorentz theory. You seem to mistake my constant references to Lorentz’s EMPIRICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, with Lorentz’ subsequent INTERPRETATIONS to explain the terms in those equations. Lorentz’ yeoman work in developing empirical equations is quite a different thing to various kinematic interpretations he proposed in his attempts to interpret them. I have no truck with those interpretations.

I would urge you to read my essay at least now. I have demonstrated therein how to represent physical processes by simple non-linear algorithms. I have accounted with extreme accuracy for the slow down of a GPS clock due to orbital motion, muon decay. I have eliminated the schism between physics of slow and fast motion. In just half a page I have derived Lorentz transformation by means of dynamic principles.

"a physical, not a mathematical, reason to throw away the negative frequency solutions" ?? I picked up this utterance of Edwin Eugene Klingman in a recent discussion.

I have to shameful admit that I too shared the idea of thrown away information about twenty years ago. Complex quantities can also be equally represented in terms of magnitude and phase or in terms of real and imaginary part. Twenty yeast ago I still wondered why the cochlea throws away the inaudible phase and does nonetheless outperform theory-based signal processing.

Meanwhile I advocate for clean use of mathematics. It may sound arrogant and hurting but I do not see an alternative: We must learn to better know what we are doing. George Ellis pointed me to the Feynman lectures. I recall having looked in vol. 2, about ten years ago, for how the author introduced the use of complex calculus in physics. I merely found out that he always calculated correctly. In the mean time, our library got vol. 1 too, and here the author explicitly revealed that he merely adopted what has been common practice for more than 100 years and was what was initially used with quantum mechanics until the receipt "real part of" was dropped without any explaining comment.

My Fig. 3 intends to show that there is no general transformation into the complex domain but a correspondence either between unilateral real time and complex frequency or between unilateral real frequency and complex time.

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT

Fig. 2, not Fig. 3, shows to the left the most common FT and to the right the FT that applies in case of QM and also of analytic signals.

Eckard

Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT

Eckard

Don't feel guilty (your post above). My responses are somewhat long because I try my best to explain myself. Anyway, here is a new approach. An exchange with Ben Dribus prompted me to rewrite two previous papers, and I have just posted the first half, which summarises what I had been saying to him, on his blog (my post 28/10 16.11). And ovelaps with the substance of our exchange here, which stopped at 17 posts. Have a look at that. Sorry I don't know how to do links

Did you see the Wesley take on Feist? (below). Also Harald van Lintel presented one at the 2003 NPA Conference in Storrs, CT, as noted by Tom Miles in a recent 'Dissidents' post. He apparently found the results of a repeat experiment 'inconclusive'.??

Wesley makes a distiction beween energy velocity and phase velocity.

Wesley_PhysEssays_v17n2(2004)159-165.pdf

Neither perceive the 'missing' point that it is not possible to have a real 'frequency' f without a corresponding wavelength once the detector and wave have interacted (and no interaction = no detection, so only 'apparent' not real f). So deriving local CSL.

I see Wesley as at least partly misguided, and haven't read van lintel.

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of Wesley. Here is the abstract of his paper you referred to (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3025664):

"Classical waves in a medium, valid for light and for sound, involve two velocities, the phase velocity c′ and the energy velocity c, which in general are different both in direction as well as in magnitude. Doppler effects for a moving source and observer and for a wind are derived. The out‐and‐back phase velocity of a wave in a wind is proved to be isotropic according to classical wave theory, which explains the Michelson‐Morley null result as simply a classical Doppler effect. Feist has recently experimentally demonstrated the isotropy of the out‐and‐back phase velocity of sound in a wind, thereby confirming classical wave theory and duplicating for sound the Michelson‐Morley null result for light." This seems to be correct. The link you gave was perhaps faulty.

Miles is suspect to me. I will nonetheless search for Harald van Lintel NPA 2003.

That is that with the conflation of reality and light reality, light speed becomes the time reference of reality. Which it may or may not be, coincidentally (ie from the perspective that it is what evolution used to develop sight). Also, coincidentally, observational light tends to be constant in that it is the result of an atomic interaction, not collision, and any startng speed is maintained unless impinged upon. That is considering light as a phyical enity, which it is, rather than some mysterious phenonomenon, which it is not. If light speed is actually the fastest rate of change there is, then it becomes the time reference for physical existence. But this needs to be proven. Which requires something more than, 'we cannot see anything faster'!! Precisely how one goes about that is somebody else's problem.

Paul

PS: I have completed a paper but want to read it through, finally. I will post it on my blog but I cannot do links, so if you want a copy send to paulwhatsit@msn.com

If M&M made a mistake then this may put length alteration in question. Didn't you believe in it? Weren't length contraction and time dilution crutches as to explain the null result of M&M? Are they required if the expectation by M&M was wrong?

While I wouldn't like to be as impolite as was James Putnam towards you, I fear you are overestimating the value of your musing. Even if we agree on that the pre-Einsteinian notion of simultaneity is still justified, you must not ignore all theory. When I was an EE and teacher for four decades, I got quite familiar with electromagnetic as well as acoustic waves, not with photons and phonons.

You did already write a lot in your essay and in discussions.

Providing attachments to your post is quite easy. I am seeing "Add/Edit Attachments" below the line that begins with "Submit New Post". Maximum file size for attachments is 1 MB.

However, I wonder if you will be in position to utter an original contribution.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the...

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the mirror (ie it is not a reflection/collision) is irrelevant. Light in this respect is not some mysterious commodity which is above normal physical rules. But one would never detect that with the set up of Michelson.

No I don’t know whether an alteration in dimension occurs as a result of accelerated/decelerated motion, somebody ought to find out. What I was saying was that they believed it did. The argument was: the expected differential was not proven, but we still think it exists, so therefore the equipment shrank to counteract that. The value derived was gamma, which is just transversal (hypotenteuse)/vertical. Which is something of a clue that they have not got the value correct, even if it does occur, and that they are conflating light reality with existent reality.

Although dimension alteration keeps getting a mention, it does not have an effect in their theory. It becomes the equivalent of the supposed shift in time (eg everyone is in ‘their own time’). And that was the donkey that they pinned the tail on. In the first instant, it caused them to worry about referencing wrt things that were moving (in the sense of more than others), because if the reference is altering dimension then that is a problematic reference. But the perversion of local time (Poincare “most ingenious idea”) ‘solved’ all that. It is all about time difference, allegedly. Of course, it one conflates light reality with existent reality, then it is, because there is always a delay whilst light travels.

Paul

PS: thanks for advice on attachments, I just could not understand what URL(?) to give it, so I just dumped it as a post and wrote an e-mail to the administrators.

Is bad news to SUSY lovers good news to me? Well, my Fig. 2 explains my suspicion: Putative symmetry in reality might be actually a logical artifact. However, I may not hope that my suspicion immediately persuades the SUSY lovers.

Likewise I cannot expect the proponents of length contraction appreciating my insight that the expectation concerning the experiment by Michelson and Morley was wrong. The simplest way to cope with arguments by me, Feist, Shtyrkov, Marmet, and several others is to ignore them. As long as I did not even accurately presented my news it does not even have the quality of a compelling news.

In the discussion on the essay by George Ellis, I dealt with putative evidence in support of SR. I did not find any tangible argument against the existence of a ubiquitous frame of reference for spatial distances. If we consider light a TEM wave then we may nonetheless compare it with acoustic waves. I will check whether there are tangible arguments against what Eric Reiter and others claimed. Maybe the Geiger counter of photons misled the physicists. Can you imagine phonons like cannon bullets?

In case of an acoustic wave, it would be nonsense to write:"The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the mirror". The speed of an acoustic wave always refers to the medium in which it propagates.

You are right. If light propagates re a space in which the earth is moving then there is a difference even if it could not be detected with a two-way measurement.

Eckard

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 06:41 GMT

Eckard

I will have to be careful here, as it may not be what you are saying. But there is no duration in physical existence. Hence even the application of x = vt can be flawed (and indeed is). So by definition, there is nothing to be symmetrical about.

Either one stays within any given time and compares different physically existent states at that time, or one compares sequences...

I will have to be careful here, as it may not be what you are saying. But there is no duration in physical existence. Hence even the application of x = vt can be flawed (and indeed is). So by definition, there is nothing to be symmetrical about.

Either one stays within any given time and compares different physically existent states at that time, or one compares sequences of these as they progress over time. The point about x = vt is that distance, which is a difference, can only occur between two physically existent states which are existent at the same time. So any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

The exception to this is that distance could be conceived as a single example of change, ie a difference. So it can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Failure to understand the absence of elapsed time in a physical reality results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt. Making this mistake reifies change, and hence duration.

Now look at Einstein1905, it falls over from the start. Even worse, distance is seen as being quantifiable in terms of subsequent timings, not just it is a duration.

Light is ‘constant’ in that it is an existent phenomenon. It is not dependent of being received (ie observation). It results from an atomic interaction, so it always starts at the same speed, ie the speed of what it reacted with is irrelevant, because it is not a collision. There is no dichotomy between ‘constant’ light speed and a variable timing. It is just that the latter is in the receipt timing of light, not physical existence. All other things being equal, then the time of receipt of light which carries a representation of any given existence will be a direct function of distance between observers and existence.

Light as in waves, etc, ie over time, is another issue. Here we need to understand how light works. How many photons are involved in a ‘decipherable’ light, does exactly the same effect in photons disperse in all directions after an interaction, what is the differential between one light and the next, how does the effect actually travel, ie does the effect itself move, or is it a chain reaction, etc etc.

Be careful with SR, it is not 1905. SR is a theoretical circumstance without gravity. So it involves fixed shape bodies (ie no dimension alteration), only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary movement, and light that travels at a constant speed in straight lines. It was his way of demonstrating that there was no inherent contradiction in the two postulates. Note the phrase “only apparently irreconcilable” when stating them in 1905. Now that is weird, a new theory, only requires two postulates, and yet the author is aware that those who have brains might spot there is an inherent contradiction somewhere. But the author does not explain why it isn’t at that time. Just ‘resolves’ it later with a purely theoretical circumstance, then moves on to the actual theory, ie GR.

The point about ‘frames’ is this: it is a reference. The reference for both time and space are concepts. They have to be operationalised. So any given timing device or spatial measuring device is just ‘telling’ the quantity. It is, in practical terms, the best approximation we have to the concept, which enables us to compare differences. Those watches of Einstein’s were in synch already, otherwise they are useless. There was no “common time” to find.

Having been stimulated by an exchange with Ben, I have written the core argument down. I am now wading through all the other stuff. I do not have the capability to be specific, but my view is becoming that this search for a stationary reference and consideration of ether/light/etc was a red herring. There is no problem. Obviously light arriving at earth is affected by a number of factors, but light here on earth? The immediate reaction, ie dimension alteration, just sort of gets left on the cutting room floor. Timing is the new kid on the block, thanks to the flawed concept of simultaneity. One gets ‘echoes’ of dimension alteration in the idea that it is OK for clocks to differ when they move, because movement is making them contract/elongate so they tick more slowly/faster.

I am working at my file "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley". Hopefully my step by step figures will be understandable and convincing to everybody. Isn't it a pity that so many so prominent experts were misled? Eventually there is no reason any more to hypothesize length contraction and all that.

Admittedly, I feel unnecessarily loaded already by my obligation just to read your lengthy comments that seem to have little to do with Michelson's mistake and that are not always understandable and agreeable. My work needs care.

You wrote: "Notions which relate to the quantification of [time] in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference."

While I do not immediately understand what difference you are referring to, I would like to mention a conclusion by Feist: The velocity of light was measured as 299.792,459.8 plus minus 0.2 m/s as two-way velocity. The actual, i.e. one-way velocity should be higher.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 17:31 GMT

Eckard

Absolutely. Though as I wade through all the quotes etc and organise them, it strikes me that Lorentz does a pretty good job of debunking the experiment anyway. Then Einstein really just ignores it under the guise of relativity, as he asserts that the whole question of ether/light, which is at rest, etc, etc, is effectively rendered irrelevant (ie neutralised) by the concept that 'everything is relative anyway'. But he then falls into the trap of equating light reality with existential reality. In other words, whether there were mistakes or not in those experiments, or their interpretation, is irrelevant, because that is ultimately not used in relativity. It just proked a train of thought. Remember the film Day of the Jackal, the policeman was always after the wrong man, but by being caused to look, he eventually found one that did exist.

The difference I refer to is the notion that measuring a distance in different ways will result in a different answer.

The difference you refer to in c, is something else, that is, c is a velocity wrt to some reference. The earth spins one way, it also is moving one way. So by definition, c depends on you reference.

Please find illustrated how Michelson and M. went wrong and mislead us: Version 2, still far from complete, not even proofread. The consequences should be obvious to everybody. Please do not hesitate to question what you learned from Lorentz, ...

I considered my revelation of the mistake understandable, in principle, for those who are familiar with the enigma, although it was just beginning to explain it. In particular it took me time to design and draw the figures, select appropriate symbols, and check several references. I decided to make my very immature file public before I got medical treatment in a hospital.

Meanwhile I managed to almost finish the first draft of "The mistake by Michelson and Morley" including four figures and a selected very few of many belonging references. I overwrote the old version while letting the file name unchanged. Just download the file again as to get the last version.

Please do not hesitate signaling to me if something is not understandable to you. My English is shaky because I got the chance to learn and use it not earlier than in 1992 when I was already 50 years old.

Thanks very much for your interest,

Eckard

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT

Please find "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley" attached in the version of today, Nov. 29, 2012

Good stuff. It's interesting what can be found out by just going back to the original and applying common sense, rather than replayingthe urban myths that have grown up since.

Leaving aside specific comments on M&M, I think, and you can understand the technical stuff, I can't, Lorentz & Poincare pursue arguments that reject the null result. Anyway, they, along with Einstein,ignore it. Effectively they presume the ether, whatever it is, to have no effect. Poincare found the M&M results "rather astonishing". The immediate explanation for it, ie dimension alteration, how that occurred, and its value as gamma is carried through but explained away by timing variations, which do not actually exist.

A) Re Fig 1: you will have to explain the point you were making in that post. As here we are back to my original comments when first reading your essay, which resulted in 17 exchanges but no conclusion. That is:

1 “his [Einstein’s] obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity”.

2 “time can strictly speaking not be measured at all”

Time can be measured very easily, but it is more important to understand what it actually is. Furthermore, in physical terms, there is no future, and the relevance of the past is that certain specific aspects of it, are each responsible for the next occurrence in the sequence (ie cause and effect). Einstein did not deny past/future, as such.

B) Re exchange with George Ellis: I will now try and track this down.

It would help if you read my post on my blog of 18 November, which summarises what I have been saying all the time, specifically in respect of Einstein.

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie ‘anything goes’ and is of equal validity, or...

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie ‘anything goes’ and is of equal validity, or non-validity, whichever-as they are the same. The point being once extrinsic to the form of existence we can know, there is no validity reference. George Ellis’s argument, which is a common one, that: “Anything to do with "infinite" is an unprovable hypothesis”, confuses the logical possibilities as to what existence might be, with the form of existence we can know. [Remember our exchange on God with Ben, and you agreed with me. This is the same logical point]. Logically, existence might have a feature we refer to as infinity. But scientifically we cannot transcend one particular form of existence, so, as with any other such ideas, we cannot know, it is just a belief and therefore not part of science. The form of physical existence we are able to examine, objectively, is, by definition, finite. Though in terms of mathematical/narrative representation thereof, tends towards infinity, is correct, ie indicating that there is a definite quantity but it is too large to quantify. This might at first appear to be ‘nit-picking’, but this is a classic example of the failure to understand the nature of what is being investigated first, before constructing representations of it.

2 Dimension alteration (Length contraction)

Whether this actually occurs is something that needs to be proven, but that is a separate issue.

Whilst it was thought to be the explanation of the null result of M&M, whether it was, or a false interpretation, or the experiment was invalid, etc, is all irrelevant. The critical point is that they believed it to be so, which initiated a certain train of thought, but ultimately was not a driver in the resulting theory of relativity. That is, for example, it caused them to be concerned about relatively moving objects and hence their use as a reference. Because such objects were so moving as the force (really a differential) causing that, also caused dimension alteration. So they introduced a non-existent variable in their thinking, which then needed to be rationalised. This morphed into time variation (ie time alteration-again there is a tendency as with length to only refer to one effect-dilation). The quantification of these effects is the same, and is wrong anyway, since all it (gamma) really amounts is a comparison of the transversal with the vertical. The concept that there was dimension alteration also gave ‘background comfort’ to the notion of timing devices varying as their momentum varied, ie their tick rate might be so affected as they contracted/dilated. The supposed variance in time is derived via another route, the closest we get to this notion is a reference to a “normal” clock. You should also note that Einstein concluded: “that the expected difference is much too small to be noticeable in the measurement of earth's surface” (section 22 Foundation 1916)

3 The real point here being that relativity is the function of two interrelated fundamental errors:

-the assumption that there is duration in physical existence, which manifests as the incorrect application of x = vt . That is, time is reified.

the conflation of physical existence and light existence (ie what we receive, but do not confuse this with the subsequent processing thereof, which is irrelevant). That is, the elimination of time delays which actually occur whilst light travels, the reification of c as the constant/limiter-a determinant of physical existence-which it is not, AND its use in the incorrect application of x = vt.

In simple language: the existent time delay whilst light travels is conflated with a non existent time variation in physical existence. Which is, as Peter Jackson will confirm, what I have been saying for the past 18 months. It has nothing to do with presuming c to be constant, which is a valid simplification, and it has nothing to be with all these torturous arguments about the processing of physical input received.

4 I would need to know what you are referring to as SR. It was not 1905. Another factual point I keep making, like the one about light is just a moving entity therefore its speed depends on the reference used to calibrate it. Einstein was perfectly clear as to what constituted SR, it was a theoretical circumstance without gravitational forces, so it involved only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, fixed shape bodies, and light that travelled at a constant speed in straight lines. Remember, in 1905 we had dimension alteration, ie not fixed shaped bodies. This contradiction in 1905 was because matter was not ‘in vacuo’, whereas light was. He was aware of a problem, hence the two postulates were “only apparently irreconcilable”, and this was ‘reconciled in section 7 1916.

5 It sounds as if the Feynman lectures you refer to are not available on-line(?)

Para 3 of your essay. The next sentence is: "The notion time has been derived from elapsed time (see Fig. 1) which is a concrete, absolute, and always positive measure." Which is correct in so far as difference indicates to us that reality is altering. But the speed at which change occurs can be measured. This is known as timing, the unit of measure being time. What is being measured is the turnover rate of reality (either in its entirety or conceptualised sub-sequences thereof). You cannot measure the future it does not physically exist.

If you are referring to how relativity is wrong, then it is my "opinion" that is correct, and what I have been saying for the past 18 months. I do not know about Israel's comments, I seem to remember reading something by him early on, have you got a reference?

Yes, one "cannot measure the future". I add: One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs.

What about Israel's essay, he recently pointed me to his paper "The physics surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and a new aether theory". The "new" theory is a neo-Lorentzian one largely by Mansouri and Sexl (1977), by Tangherlini, by Selleri, and by others, cf. also Van Flandern. Seen by the mainstream, Israel is a dissident. Nonetheless, he did not yet see the mistake I am trying to make aware of. The overlookes mistake even affects the position by R. Cahill and some reasoning by Norbert Feist.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT

Eckard

“One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs”

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is...

“One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs”

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is possible. Just as is size, colour, loudness, etc, etc. The key point here being that what occurred in physical existence is captured in a physically existent, but representational reality. That is known as light, noise, vibration, etc, etc. So, on the basis of understanding how those physical phenomena work, we can, and with the neutralisation of any influence introduced in the subsequent processing of what was physically received, identify what actually occurred.

Re Israel, et al. And indeed yourself. Fair enough. But as I keep on saying, any new fact in this area can have no impact on relativity. Because there is no connection. People can keep on trying to understand how light/the medium works till they go to their grave, but it is irrelevant to identifying the error in relativity. For the simple reason that that is not where the error is. Einstein conflated light reality and existent reality. Examination of all his examples, and overt statements prove this. Here is one (section 12, 1916): “As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity”.

The other error is in measuring distance in terms of elapsed time, ie the time it would take something to travel that distance, either way. But there is no duration in distance, that is just an alternative method for expressing it. And guess what he uses to calibrate distance?? Yep, light. So c becomes the timing reference for physical existence (which is its role in light reality). It is constant because it is being used as the design determinant. It just so happens that, in physical existence observational light is practically constant. It always starts with the same velocity, and not much impedes that motion, and only marginally. Here is the mistake, copied from Poincaré Section 1, 1905:

“If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a“B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t(a) from A towards B, let it at the “B time” t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t’(a).

Einstein has , effectively, reversed how physical existence actually occurs. Section 8 1916: “Under these conditions we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.”

Einstein has equated the real time differential which occurs, because light travels, with a false differential attributed to an existential time difference. This is why relativity ‘works’. It always struck me from the outset that whilst there is ‘something wrong here’, obviously the theory must come up with the ‘right answers’, otherwise it would have been rejected by now.

So, in amongst everything else you arereading, I can only ask you to read my post, or indeed I will send you a copy. And please ignore the first 3 paragraphs, because I do not want you to start thinking it’s all philosophy. Start with what distance is (para 4).

- It is only reasonable if the distance between A and B does not change.

- It also requires that the speed of light is not affected by a common motion of A and B re space.

The latter condition corresponds to the seeming result of MMX. If I recall correctly, it was already Lorentz who had the idea of local time(s). Notice, Lorentz intended to rescue the aether against the unexpected null result of MMX. That's why I consider the revelation of a logical mistake in Michelson's expectation still important.

By the way, if you don't understand the notion two-way speed then I will try and explain it in connection with the opinions by Israel Perez vs. Norbert Feist.

-a distance identified at a subsequent time cannot be presumed to be the same distance, or indeed a function of the same physically existent states.

Neither is the problem anything to do with the speed of light, because Einstein is not referring to light as in observational light, really he is using light as a timing device. And time is constant. Have you ever noticed how many of his examples have lightening or light beams, this masks the conflation of existence and a physical representation of that existence.

Distance is solely determined by physically existent states, since it is the difference between them in respect of spatial attributes, and differences do not exist physically. So distance can only involve physically existent states which exist at the same time. It is not possible to establish a distance, as opposed to some form of conceptual spatial relationship, between something which exists and something else which does not.

Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

Distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity.

Lorentz had the proper concept of local time, as deployed by Voigt/Doppler. That is, in a frequency, ie a sequence which is occurring over time, then each point in that frequency can be designated with a time. Which is correct. Poincaré highjacked this and incorrectly applied it, thereby giving everything in existence its own time. Einstein copied this. Michelson, and anybody else who thinks it, is correct to state that light must be quicker one way than the other, if the earth is moving. The simple fact is that you need something better than he had to detect it, assuming he got his sums right anyway. They did not really believe the result of M&M. Just paid ‘lip sevice’ to it. And yes, factored out the ether. But as I keep on saying, none of this matters in terms of what is actually driving relativity, because these considerations are not. It just set them on a particular path of thinking, with a number of coincidences which resulted in relativity.

Similar to the other quote I put up, here is another one, which encapsulates the error being made. The time delay which occurs whilst light travels has been reversed into physical existence. That is what the incorrect definition of simultaneity does.

1916 Section 9, para 3:

“Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity”.

"Lorentz had the proper concept of local time, as deployed by Voigt/Doppler."???

Having Voigt "Ueber das Doppler'sche Prinzip" 1887 at hand I can tell you that Voigt referred to how an observer perceives a point that is moving in an elastic medium. Neither he nor Doppler attributed a local time in the sense that was later meant by Lorentz (1895) and Poincaré to something.

The Voigt-transformation (1887) included the factor gamma for the y- and z-coordinates and a new time variable depending on x which later was called local time. It explained the null result of the MMX but violated relativity (cf. wiki/history_of_special_relativity).

If - as I found out - the expectation of a non-null result was a mistake, then the introduction of local time by Lorentz was perhaps not justified at all.

Don't you agree that there is a common moment of what you are calling existence?

In other words, do we need Einstein's (Poincaré's) synchronization?

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 7, 2012 @ 08:13 GMT

Eckard

“Neither he nor Doppler attributed a local time in the sense that was later meant by Lorentz (1895) and Poincaré to something.”

The precision and the senses are not important, it is the generic usage. Fundamentally, local time was originally used to depict the time of different points in a sequence. This is what Lorentz is doing in 1895 when explaining oscillations. ...

“Neither he nor Doppler attributed a local time in the sense that was later meant by Lorentz (1895) and Poincaré to something.”

The precision and the senses are not important, it is the generic usage. Fundamentally, local time was originally used to depict the time of different points in a sequence. This is what Lorentz is doing in 1895 when explaining oscillations. Poincaré never ‘gets it’, he sees it as being an explanation of his incorrect definition of simultaneity, ie that works because there is an inherent timing differential in physical existence. Which there is if one conflates light with existence!

All transformations will be gamma, because they are all being derived on the same basis, ie the relationship between the transversal and the vertical. The vertical being the ‘ideal’ situation, and the transversal being what occurred when something happened. Heaviside had gamma. The real question, before examining whether that value is correct or whether it is just a function of depicting events by triangles, is what is the purpose of the transformation, why is this correction being effected in the first place, and whether it is actually right to do so?

“If - as I found out - the expectation of a non-null result was a mistake”

?? You will have to explain this, ie are you referring to some technical point with the experiment or a more fundamental argument. Because since the earth is moving (various ways actually) then the calibrated speed of light will vary, depending on directions. Which is where they all started, the interrelationships with ether, permeability, etc, being detail. That is, if you have one moving entity (say light) and another moving entity (say earth) then the relative speed of either will depend on the way they are compared. They were hoping to discover something which was at absolute rest, and therefore could be used as the reference for calibrating all speeds.

The concept of local time is correct, if applied properly, ie to depict the timing of stages of a sequence.

“Don't you agree that there is a common moment of what you are calling existence?”

Yes. As at any given time, there are countless definitive physically existent states in existence. Put simply, at some specific point in time whilst I typed that, St Pauls Cathedral was in a specific physically existent state, so was I, the computer, a train travelling into London, etc, etc, etc. As at the next point in time, all these were in a different physically existent state. Now, we (and all sentient organisms) are only aware of those with the receipt of physically existent representations thereof (commonly known as light, noise, vibration, heat, etc). There is a time delay whilst this occurs, apart from the fact that what is received is a representation of the reality which occurred, not the reality. So, there are always two sets of times. The time of existence, and the time of receipt of a representation of that. Forget the subsequent processing of what is physically received, that is irrelevant, this is physics, not psychology. The real trick is, given the time of receipt, to infer the time of existence. And indeed, what it actually was.

And that answered your last question, ie “In other words, do we need Einstein's (Poincaré's) synchronization?” Yes, we need to understand the timing relationships, which fundamentally we can take as a function of spatial position (ie assume light speed as constant, which it more or less is, unless some specific circumstance arose, and we cannot calculate the ‘actual’-ie wrt to some constantly used reference-on each occasion anyway). But, underpinning that, we first need to understand that physical existence is existential sequence. Because if we fail to do that, we end up with a confusion of what occurred when.

Concerning Woldemar Voigt I would like to mention an expert comment by Wolfgang Lange in Oktober 2012 within http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/blog/ I quote: “Bei einer 4×4-Matrix mit 16 Elementen darf auch nicht ein einziges vorgegeben werden, weil das das Ergebnis verfälscht. Dieser Irrtum ist Voigt unterlaufen“ and translate: “In case of a 4X4 matrix with 16 elements one must not choose a single element because this distorts the result; this mistake was made by Voigt”.

It is certainly a more demanding task to try and understand the literature in detail as did Lange than to just superficially read a lot and comment on it in a lecturing manner as you are persistently doing.

When I wrote “If - as I found out - the expectation of a non-null result was a mistake” I referred to my file “The mistake by Michelson and Morley”. You asked: “Are you referring to some technical point with the experiment or a more fundamental argument?” I consider an expectation something fundamental, not just technical. So the mistake was a fundamental one. Admittedly, I did not yet generalize my reasoning. I am just in position to show that they overlooked an important trifle.

You are skeptical: “Because since the earth is moving then the calibrated speed of light will vary, depending on directions”. Well, the motion of earth re absolute space must no longer be denied. In this contest, Israel Perez advocated for a preferred reference. I did also quote experimental evidence by Shtyrkov and by several others. What about your “calibrated speed of light”, highly accurate values of c were so far always measured with two-way methods.

You are lecturing me again: “The concept of local time is correct, if applied properly, ie to depict the timing of stages of a sequence.” Well, the local times of NY and Tokyo are different. Nonetheless, it is at least reasonable to synchronize clocks on a common world time. There are physicists who abandon relativity of time while they hope for rescuing Einstein’s relativity just by reinterpretation.

You are quite right, “what is received is a representation of the reality which occurred, not the reality”. The delay evades unilateral measurement but it can be accounted for. That’s why I say we do not need Einstein's (Poincaré's) synchronization which was aptly called by Van Flandern a desynchronization.

You wrote “timing relationships, which fundamentally we can take as a function of spatial position”. Einstein’s (de)synchronization does not refer time to a spatial position but to a velocity that lacks a reasonable point of reference. Opponents of Einstein argue that he did not even bother to reasonably clarify what the speed of light refers to. The speed of sound does not refer to an observer but to the medium. I am not aware of any experimental evidence for light behaving differently in that respect.

On many occasions precisely what happens is irrelevant to a correct logical/generic depiction. I could ask questions about precisely how does light work, but not knowing the answers does not detract from certain key logically correct statements. Similarly the point about local time is about designating a time to each ‘point’ in an elapsed sequence,...

On many occasions precisely what happens is irrelevant to a correct logical/generic depiction. I could ask questions about precisely how does light work, but not knowing the answers does not detract from certain key logically correct statements. Similarly the point about local time is about designating a time to each ‘point’ in an elapsed sequence, which is correct, as opposed to using local time in a different way.

2 Fundamental vrs technical

As per the above, in respect of my question about the expectation from the M&M experiments, which you did not answer, I was asking whether your assertion meant: a) they should have not have been expecting that outcome because it does not occur, or b) they should not have been expecting it because the experiment would never identify it/the maths was wrong/etc.

3 Earth movement

I am not sceptical, it is a fact, and the point is not about absolute space. We can never know what is absolute and what is not. The simple fact is that, irrespective of what reference is used to calibrate motion (both in the sense of speed and direction), the earth is a moving entity, so too is light. Therefore, there must be differences with respect to one another, depending on relative direction and speed. A ‘preferred’ reference is just some entity which is best fit for purpose, it has no mystical properties and is not an absolute. And then, having chosen it, it must be maintained for all calibrations so that they are comparable. Irrespective of their precise concerns about ether, etc, their original point was correct, the speed of light going one way as opposed to the other wrt earth will be different.

4 Fundamental point

Just to amplify the underlying logic of the above and demonstrate that it is omnipresent: How do we know any given thing exists? Answer: because it is different from something else. Everything is relative. Every judgement has the logical form of comparison to reference in order to identify difference. This applies whether it be a manifest attribute (eg motion) or the very substance that is manifesting this. But we can progress in what is effectively a state of anarchy, because what we can know is a closed system. So all the logical possibilities which we cannot know are irrelevant, otherwise it would be impossible to make any objective judgement. In other words, what is relative within a closed system, has, within that closed system, an absolute quality, presuming that we did the sums correctly, etc.

5 Time

The point about local time revolves around its application to sequence, which is a series of events over time. This is the correct use of the concept known as local time. And as I said, Lorentz was using it correctly. Poincaré was the problem. Read his nonsense about time which starts in 1898 with The Measure of Time. Based of that, he incorretly applied the concept of local time. It must be understood that the reference in the measuring system known as timing is a constant rate of change. Timing devices just ‘tell’ the time, they are a practical manifestation of that. That is, they all individually function with the most constant and highest frequency of change possible, and are then synchronised, within the realms of practicality, to one common constant rate of change. If they do not work properly, or are not synchronised, then they are useless. Achieving this is a practical problem.

6 Synchronisation

The point was not whether we need Einstein’s/ Poincaré’s view, we need a proper view, which their’s is not anyway. And we need to apply that in the context of a time delay between existence and receipt of representation of existence. Einstein relentlessly used time to express distance, he keeps on asserting that this is how we measure movement, ie change in spatial position. Obviously time is dervived from the deployment of some velocity, and he uses light. Now, this is where the error lies, so he has to, although he probably just did rather than make any conscious decision, maintain that flawed perspective for it to work. All that happens is he shifts the variable from one cause to another (or at least Poincaré did really). The point here being, distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Try this: put two things on the table. There is now a distance, or space, between them. This does not physically exist, it is a difference, the result of comparison between two things that are existent. Now take one of them away. There is no distance. There can only be a distance between physically existent entities which exist at the same time. And there is no duration in physical existence for something to travel over this distance, because any given physical existence only occurs in that particular physical state for a ‘point in time’. In the subsequent state, that distance may be the same, but it may not be. There are different physical states which are determining that distance. The idea of measuring distance as a function of time and velocity is correct, so long as it is not presumed that the duration thereby derived is real. The difference (ie distance) is not actually there for anything to actually travel along it. What we are saying is: had it been possible then z would have taken t at v to travel x.

7 Einstein

And finally(!), note that Einstein used c whenever he did this. It always struck me from the outset that a) relativity ‘works’ so if there is a problem then it involves compensatory errors, or the incorrect attribution of a real variable, b) that approximating light speed to constant cannot be a logical problem (see para 1). It obviously is more or less so, therefore that simplification cannot be a fundamental issue. What must be happening has something else to do with the conceptualisation of light. All these arguments over the actual speed of light are ‘red herrings’, they will never resolve the issue, because they are not the issue.

Michelson should not have expected interference fringes to occur as a result of his experiment with the two mirrors arranged straight and perpendicular, respectively, in equal distance.

It is undoubtedly reasonable to prefer a reference wrt which the speed of a wave is c (=constant). You wrote: "the speed of light going one way as opposed to the other wrt earth will be different". You meant the reasoning by Michelson was correct. I disagree.

By the way, I see you as imprecise as was Einstein when he denied a common reference and more or less tacitly related anything to the observer. See Table 1 in the paper "Michelson-Morley Experiments and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. In case of SR, the speed of light is believed equal to c in all four cases: One-way and Two-way in frames S and A' each.

Only naive people believe the slogan "anything is relative". The money in my pocket may either or not be sufficient to buy something. While I am relative to my ancestors, I am relative to my grandchildren only to the extent they already exist. There is an absolute while steadily changing borderline between past and future.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 07:05 GMT

OK so your first point is a technical one.

But your second point is a fundamental one, which you do not explain, other than an allusion to constancy. The issue is not approximating the calibrated speed of observational light to a constant calibrated wrt earth. Quite obviously, that cannot be a fundamental problem, because in practical terms, it is. The issue is about assuming it is...

But your second point is a fundamental one, which you do not explain, other than an allusion to constancy. The issue is not approximating the calibrated speed of observational light to a constant calibrated wrt earth. Quite obviously, that cannot be a fundamental problem, because in practical terms, it is. The issue is about assuming it is constant because it represents time for physical existence, ie incorrectly assuming the representational reality afforded by light is existential reality. Look at his examples, and indeed the Cox & Forshaw book. Relentlessly he conflates observational light with light being used for the purposes of timing, he has to do to make the theory work.

Putting the above another way, in order to substantiate your assertion that there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept being expressed, can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways? The fact that one of these entities is light is irrelevant, it is still a moving entity (and how it does so is also irrelevant to this question-there is some definitive physical effect, and it moves-that’s all we need to know for this).

I am not quite sure what you are saying in the third paragraph. Einstein’s references for constancy were a practical simplification of the actual speed in any given circumstance of observational light, ie c. And a really constant c as time. He did not tacitly relate existence to what was received by observer. It is very clear what he is doing. I think after about 5 minutes I could see this, with his AB example in section 1. But that is because I had no ‘baggage’ to blind me from seeing what was actually written. In SR it is not a case of the speed of light being “believed” to be, it is stated as being so, because there is no gravitational force in SR to influence it. This being a perfectly sound approximation of the real world. What you need to notice is that in SR there are also fixed bodies because there is no gravitational force. Whereas in 1905 there are bodies which change dimension. But in 1905 he said: “only apparently irreconcilable”, ie he knew there was a problem which he ‘fixed’ with the theoretical context of SR, ie no gravitation. Then he went on to GR, where there is gravitation, and light, as well as everything else, is affected.

“Only naive people believe the slogan "anything is relative".

Really? Well you give me an example of an absolute, and explain how you know it to be so, ie how you have transcended your very existence in order to make this assertion. Since you cannot do that, I would suggest you are confusing constancy with absolute. We only know something to be so within the closed system of our existence. So it is absolute, or objective is a better word, within a context. Attributes of what is so, are calibrated by us by comparison to identify difference, ie they are a relative estimation. We cannot know what is not moving, hence there is no absolute reference. In respect of the notion of using ‘space’ as the reference, as I responded to Jonathan in one of his intial responses to me, how does that work? First I am not sure anybody has proved that space, as in spatial position with absolutely nothing there, exists. And second, if it does how does one reference to it? In other words, really the reference is to something which is existent, it just does not ‘look like it’ and appears to be constantly ‘still’.

I have said enough about what future and past constitute existentially.

Please try to understand what you called technical stuff before offering your speculations and naive slogans.

I fear, your often reiterated views concerning closed system of out existence, dimension alteration, local (= proper) time, the twists of Einstein 1905 and later, etc. will neither help nor hurt anybody.

So far I couldn't learn from you, and I didn't get the impression that you were really ready for unbiased exchange of arguments. Moreover, I see you anything but concise and often hardly understandable. For instance you wrote "Look at his examples" without specifying to whom you are referring. My patience is limited.

Can you please either refute or support my claims?

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 13, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT

Eckard

"Can you please either refute or support my claims?"

I have done, whenever there is something secific to comment on, and where I cannot comment I have said so. Indeed, I made 2 specific points on what you had previously written in the last post, neither of which were answered.

""Look at his examples" without specifying to whom you are referring"

Does the word Einstein spring to mind? But again this is a point I have made several times already.

"I fear, your often reiterated views concerning..."

Like anybody else, you could of course point out why these statements I make are incorrect. And in the more general sense, if you read what I have written you might be able to take a more informed position, indeed, you might learn something.

Instead of writing his without specifying you refer to Einstein you should perhaps write His.

You asked: "can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways?"

While I understand this question as addressing SR, I do not see it directly related to my essay. Please let me know if I overlooked relevant to the latter questions of you, refutations or support.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 14, 2012 @ 05:44 GMT

Eckard

“You asked: "can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways?" While I understand this question as addressing SR, I do not see it directly related to my essay.”

Why has this go it anything to do with SR? And even if it has, that was clearly not my point, because I did not...

“You asked: "can you please explain how two differently moving entities fail to have different calibrated speeds when referenced to each other in different ways?" While I understand this question as addressing SR, I do not see it directly related to my essay.”

Why has this go it anything to do with SR? And even if it has, that was clearly not my point, because I did not mention SR when I made it. Indeed, in its original format it was very clear. That is: the start to all this was to find something that did not move and could therefore be a reference to calibrate movement (which was incorrect because no absolute can be known and it has to be assumed that everything is moving, finding something that moves consistently and independently is a different point). However, the other component of their start point was that light must travel at different speeds one way as opposed to the other, because the earth moves, hence the desire for a stationary reference to calibrate this. Now, leaving aside their views as to the relationship between ether, etc, etc, which is detail, this view is correct. By definition, two entities with different momentum will result in different calibrations thereof, when compared in different ways.

There seems to be a fundamental problem on this forum, and possibly with physics in general in understanding light. It is a physical effect, which is moving. To my left there is a waste basket and a chair with the dog sitting on it. Light is currently travelling between the chair and the basket, and vice versa. Light is travelling from the dog, or me, to the chair and basket. The physics of that is exactly the same as the light travelling from the basket/chair to the dog/me. The only difference is that the dog/me, being sentient organisms can process that light upon receipt, the basket/chair cannot. That processing is irrelevant to the physics of what occurred.

My other question related to what was the fundamental mistake Michelson made?

In general, as I have said before, I cannot comment on the specifics of the M&M experiments, but suspect you are ‘on to something’. Indeed I remember some months ago a response to me when you said something along the lines’ well I’m not sure about that, but you have prompted a thought’. My point is that this has no connection with the structure of relativity and its fault. The reaction, warranted or otherwise, that there is dimension alteration, certainly influenced how they thought, and was therefore to some extent self-fulfilling, ie they looked for an answer to fit this. And again, can I ask you to read my post of 187 Nov, or send a link and I will send you a copy, paulwhatsit@msn.com

"everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to? This is my last reply to you:

I consider the propagation of a wave related neither to its emitter nor to any receiver but to the medium of propagation. Even if we are using two-way methods to measure e.g. the speed of sound, the basic quantity is the one-way speed re medium.

And Michelson's - as I maintain wrong - expectation eventually led to SR.

""everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to?"

No, I am saying we must presume everything is moving, which effectively is the same end result, but the correct expression. Because we have no absolute reference against which to make a judgement. And if you, or someone else you know thinks otherwise, explain to me what that something is,...

""everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to?"

No, I am saying we must presume everything is moving, which effectively is the same end result, but the correct expression. Because we have no absolute reference against which to make a judgement. And if you, or someone else you know thinks otherwise, explain to me what that something is, and why you know it is absolutely stationary. In other words, when we choose a reference, which could be anything (but it has to be something) then that is conceptually deemed to be stationary whilst all other speeds/directions are calibrated against it, ie it either appears to be stationary, or if we can see that it is relatively moving we can discount the effect over time whilst measuring (aka translation).

And presuming that the 'universe' is another label for 'all of existence that we can know', then the answer is that we do not know anything extrinsic to that. So it is irrelevant. We can only have knowledge. When we think we are comparing knowledge with reality, we are not. We are comparing knowledge with other knowledge. We can only know, and we can only know what it is possible for us to know. Which, by definition, does not include what we cannot know. We can think up a countless number of ideas, but that is not knowledge/ science.

Now, if your 'universe' relates to a sub-set of all we can know, then we just need a reference extrinsic to 'universe' to calibrate its speed. Which might well be difficult, but that is the point.

Another point to make here is that in either case, but especially the former, this effect is omnipresent, so it is irrelevant for calibration purposes, which is about comparison to identify difference. Discounting an effect that is everywhere makes has no effect on difference.

"I consider the propagation of a wave related neither to its emitter nor to any receiver but to the medium of propagation."

Fine, that is as good a choice as any for the reference against which to calibrate. Now tell me what specifically it is, and how you identify, and then maintain identification, of a specific entity of this 'medium' in order to effect all the calibrated measurements. Remember, to ensure comparability of measurements, the same reference must be used (or adjustments factored in to effectively make it the same), otherwise they are useless. Because I can say that A measured X speed and B measured Y speed. To which you would think there was a difference, but then get annoyed when I reveal that A was moving X when measured against D, whilst B was moving Y when measured against F. You would immediately point out to me that I have to use the same reference, or what was the difference between D & F, which of course requires another common reference to establish. This is the mistake Peter, and others, keep making in their emission theories, the reference is changed to maintain the calibrated speed.

So you have still not addressed my point that light vis a vis earth calibrated speeds must vary depending on how the two are compared.

"And Michelson's - as I maintain wrong - expectation eventually led to SR"

As explained, again, above, presuming what expectation you are talking about (ie light/earth speed), that was not wrong. Whether they came to it for the wrong reasons is another matter. Neither did it lead, in any sense of that word, to SR. Because SR is a theoretical circumstance where there is no gravitation and everything is fixed shape and moving relatively constantly. Neither did it 'lead' to relativity. What 'lead', in the sense of created the mental environment which resulted in the construction of this particular perspective was a certain presumption which was fulfilled by invoking errors. The flaw in relativity is in those errors. As I keep on saying, and have explained elsewhere, the problem in relativity is not the constancy of observational light. It obviously cannot be, because it is more or less constant, so such a simplification cannot invoke a fundamental flaw.

"It's not a matter of honesty and courage. I am simply unable to understand your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment so at least in my case it's a matter of (insufficient) intelligence perhaps. If I were in your shoes, I would stick to some good textbook presentation of the Michelson's rationale (there are plenty of them) and show where exactly and how exactly my assumptions differ from his."

I anticipate distrust, unwillingness, and more or less pretended laziness hindering the insight that Michelson's famous expectation to measure the aether wind was seemingly plausible but wrong. Therefore I will add a part 2 to my file "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley". I would appreciate hints if the already attached file is not yet compellingly understandable. Isn't the flaw I got aware of quite easily to be seen from the figures? The plenty of literature, including textbooks, mainstream papers, historical studies, and dissident criticism overlooked that two relevant lines of reasoning must be considered together.

- As already the 1887 supplement, Paul Marmet's consideration and Israel Perez' paper correctly calculated, the motion of the arrangement re medium alters the angle of reflection. This was originally overlooked by Michelson 1881 but then corrected perhaps by Potier and Lorentz and now described in all literature.

- Perhaps nobody so far considered where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter. This can also easily be calculated. It leads to the surprising result that no interference fringes are to be expected in vacuum.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT

Eckard,

If your assumption of "where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter" is the only difference between your interpretation and Michelson's one, then you should draw the following conclusions from your analysis:

1. The principle of relativity is false.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer does not depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate is correct).

3. The speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer (special relativity is wrong).

Please let's not comment before carefully analyzing. I just mentioned a fake that got blindly accepted from the community because it seemed to confirm theory, and you yourself experienced blind rejection because the result or your reasoning was not acceptable.

Did you really already understand my arguments? If so, I did not expect you to speak any longer of different interpretations of the non-null expectation for the outcome of the 1887 experiment. Even if you feel hurt by the insight that the expectation of non-null result was wrong, you should be forced to accept it.

You and almost all others could hope that I made a mistake, if there was not easily understandable experimental evidence by Norbert Feist too. I do not belittle work by many critics of Lorentz transformation including Stephen Sycamore and Thomas Phipps. I just prefer the immediate and complete falsification of the MMX expectation. I am asking: What was definitely wrong? If I am correct, then there is no doubt: Michelson's conclusion that the result of his experiment excluded the existence of a common frame of reference was wrong and misleading.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 06:02 GMT

Pentcho/Eckard

In 1905 Einstein presumed:

-light starts at a constant speed, ie independently of the speed of the entity involved

-light continues to travel at that speed unless impeded in some way

In SR this is also what he assumed because there is no gravitation, ie it is again in vacuo. In GR he also assumed this, because the effect on light, ie an example of an...

-light starts at a constant speed, ie independently of the speed of the entity involved

-light continues to travel at that speed unless impeded in some way

In SR this is also what he assumed because there is no gravitation, ie it is again in vacuo. In GR he also assumed this, because the effect on light, ie an example of an impediment to its travel, was attributed to gravitational forces.

Now, irrespective of why he thought so, the fact is that this is correct, because the creation of light is an atomic reaction (ie it is not collision/reflection), hence the same result every time, and like everything else, it will continue to travel at that speed unless impeded.

It is, just a moving entity. The speed of the observer is irrelevant. As I said in a post above, light is currently travelling between the chair and the waste basket in this room, and vice versa. There is NO physical difference between this circumstance and the one which involves light travelling to me. The ONLY difference is that I can process that light when received, chairs and waste baskets can not. But that is not physics, it is physiology, biology, sociology, etc.

The problem with relativity is that there is always a time delay between the physical occurrence, and the receipt of light from that occurrence. But Einstein conflated reality, as represented by light, and reality. So he attributed this delay to reality, with his idea that ‘everything has its own time’, which lead to a model of reality which has time as, effectively, another spatial dimension. The error in relativity has nothing to do with the speed of light, nor observation, in the sense of processing that light. Conflating light and reality has another important consequence, in that the speed of light becomes the determining factor, which it obviously in the physical representation of reality, aka light, but not reality, which is different. So the speed c, also becomes a surrogate for t, as well as being observational light. Being concerned with rate of change, t is a constant, irrespective of what is actually used in practice to measure it.

All arguments about the M&M experiments are relevant to those experiments and understanding what went wrong there, if anything, but they are irrelevant to relativity. Which is about the relative timing of the receipt of light, but they failed to differentiate light from reality, so thought the variable was at the other end of the process. Put simply, they thought existence occurs (which is when the light occurs) at a different time and then finishes up at the same time when received. Whereas, actually, existence (and hence light) occurs at the same time, but takes time to travel, so is received at different times depending (in pure conditions) on distance. Furthermore, that distance can alter whilst the light (which is really a series of lights) travels, thereby causing a differential between the rate of change in reality and the rate of change in the timing of receipt thereof.

When I wrote my essay, Marmet's paper "The overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment" was for a while not available to me. That's why I did not quote it. Marmet was not quite correct when he wrote that the Michelson-Morley ignored the influence of the velocity on the angle of reflection. Moreover, his Figures are rather confusing. Nonetheless he already came to the correct conclusion which is also experimentally confirmed by Feist.

What he meant was that under ‘perfect’ conditions, any example of whatever constitutes ‘light’ always moves at the same, and a constant, speed. This is because its formation is the function of an atomic interaction, ie not a collision – the same interaction always resulting in the same speed. And, as with any other entity, light will keep moving at that original speed, and in the original direction, unless impeded in some way. The point is that when measured, that will involve something else which will be moving at a different speed and in a different direction. Measuring being a process involving the identification of difference by comparison.

In respect of Michelson, surely he was referring to light, and/or the ether through which it travels, both of which are something, not nothing.

Michelson (1881): The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether

Para 1:

“The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space…Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels.”

As I have said before, this is correct. Light wrt earth will render different results depending on how the measurement is effected. The point is not about the ether, but light. And all light cannot be deemed as the same physical entity, which it obviously is not. Light received from the same physical occurrence over ‘there’ is different to the light received over ‘here’. It is just that the physical qualities which are utilsed in the subsequent processing if received by a sentient organism, are the same (or very nearly so). Similarly light received from a physical occurrence at a different time, is different (so too is the physical occurrence).

So, the question is, why was this effect not found. Which your essay may have identified. Certainly something went ‘wrong’, because the start assumption is correct.

Well, Maxwell imagined electromagnetic waves belonging to a hypothetical medium called ether, and Michelson was possibly skeptical about this idea when he wrote: "ASSUMING then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, WOULD depend on the direction in which it travels” [my emphases].

I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space. Likewise I deliberately use the letter c for the constant velocity of light as for the constant velocity of sound although c originally stood for celeritas not for constant re medium.

The question how do the single elements of the world depend on each other via empty space challenged e.g. Guericke to perform utterly important experiments. In contrast to Michelson, v. Guericke was not an agnostic. Your naive style of reasoning would not allow you to trust in the theory of electromagnetic fields.

My file "Michelson's Still Illusory Expectation" tries to show that the reasoning behind Michelson's experiment was still incomplete after Michelson and Morley took the objection by Potier in account.

"I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space."

So what is the reference against which the comparison to establish difference (in this case speed) is being made, it has to be something. And whatever these entities are, a distinction is always made between 'ether' and 'light'. Also, what is "empty space"? My "naive reasoning" is just analysing phenomena at the generic level. For example, light is a specific physical entity and it moves.

Be cautious with the notion nothing. Empty space "exists". Does zero exist? Addition of zero to something does not change anything. However multiplication by zero has an effect.

Consider empty space like a white sheet of paper. Once you have chosen two points on this empty space, you have made it a frame of reference where any other point is located.

Eckard

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT

Eckard

“Be cautious with the notion nothing. Empty space "exists"

Really? So, if it ‘exists’, what is it? Noting, somewhat obviously, that if it exists, it is therefore something, not nothing.

My original point being, apart from the fact that nothing cannot exist, it is impossible to reference to nothing, and any measurement involves a comparison (reference) to identify difference and must be made wrt something. And indeed, that something must remain the reference (or a factoring effected, which is the same thing) for various measurements to be comparable.

Your point about zero is irrelevant. That is a representational device, it is not being stated that zero exists. What is being stated is that there are none of something specific in a specified circumstance.

“Consider empty space like a white sheet of paper. Once you have chosen two points on this empty space, you have made it a frame of reference where any other point is located.”

This is not correct either. As I have said before, when considering spatial relationship, the reference is a conceptual spatial matrix that is ‘imposed’ on physical reality. Then at any given point in time, any given physical entity can be ‘mapped’ onto it. Indeed, its spatial footprint is the spatial points ‘occupied’ at that given time. But to effect this, something, at that given time, has to be chosen as the spatial reference, in order to ‘fix’ the spatial grid. It cannot just ‘float’ about.

Think about it, when you say something is here, and something else is over there, what are you actually saying.

Meanwhile I have to correct myself. While the expectation by Michelson and Morley was indeed still a bit incorrect, they already noticed this, and Michelson was already correct in 1881 in that Maxwell's idea of relative motion between earth and aether was untenable. Please find my explanation in this essay .